The Zapruder Film

[William Kelly]

The Zapruder Film - What does it tell us?

If the Z film is an accurate representation of what happened at Dealey Plaza, what does it tell us, other than JFK was shot in the head by a bullet and murdered?

Does it tell us which direction the bullet came from?

Does it tell us how many shots there were and what damage they did?

Does it tell us Moorman was not in the street when she took the photo, and that witness testimony is not always accurate?

Does it tell us how the Secret Service did their job that day?

What does it tell us?

BK

[John Simkin]

The Zapruder Film - What does it tell us?

If the Z film is an accurate representation of what happened at Dealey Plaza, what does it tell us, other than JFK was shot in the head by a bullet and murdered?

Does it tell us which direction the bullet came from?

Does it tell us how many shots there were and what damage they did?

Does it tell us Moorman was not in the street when she took the photo, and that witness testimony is not always accurate?

Does it tell us how the Secret Service did their job that day?

What does it tell us?

BK

A good set of questions. I really would like to know from the many experts on the Zapruder Film who are members of this forum to answer this question. I will use this information to update the Spartacus page on the subject. I will also give it a link to this thread so that visitors can understand the different interpretations we have of the Zapruder Film.

[Ron Ecker]

It tells us that JFK was fatally shot from the front (head snap) / there was a conspiracy.

It tells us that JFK was not shot from inside the car.

[David Andrews]

Without getting into specifics or restarting recent debates - there's so much "action" in the way of unexplained phenomena in the commonly seen version that it's impossible to rule out tampering.

Oh, OK - the limo motion and jerk forward, and the all-lawn background of much of the tight-shot portion. That's two.

Descriptions of other versions, by Rich Della Rossa and others, must also be taken in account here.

[William Kelly]

Without getting into specifics or restarting recent debates - there's so much "action" in the way of unexplained phenomena in the commonly seen version that it's impossible to rule out tampering.

Oh, OK - the limo motion and jerk forward, and the all-lawn background of much of the tight-shot portion. That's two.

Descriptions of other versions, by Rich Della Rossa and others, must also be taken in account here.

David,

There are a dozen threads going on here discussing alterations, and refuting alteration allegations.

I want to know, if the Zapruder film is what Tink Tompson and others say it is - an accuate portrayal of the murder - then what does it tell us?

If it was altered, why was it altered? To hide something that it would have told us if it wasn't altered?

This thread is working on the assumption that the film can be shown to be an accurate portrayal of the murder, and therefor, I want to know what it does show and tell?

BK

[Paul Baker]

Anyone with a basic understanding of Newtonian physics (specifically the principle of the conservation of momentum) will understand that an impacting bullet will not have sufficient momentum to cause any appreciable movement in a target that is much heavier (apologies - I don't know what the precise ratio is, but I'm pretty sure JFK's head weighed considerably more than the bullet that penetrated it). The film also clearly shows debris ejecting in front of JFK. Only a bullet fired from behind could have this effect.

The 'headsnap' is therefore irrelevant in determining the direction of the bullet. I'm not even convinced the film shows a headsnap.

Assuming the film wasn't faked (no-one has ever provided any convincing evidence that it was), the shot that hit JFK's head came from behind. Simple.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Paul Baker

[William Kelly]

Anyone with a basic understanding of Newtonian physics (specifically the principle of the conservation of momentum) will understand that an impacting bullet will not have sufficient momentum to cause any appreciable movement in a target that is much heavier (apologies - I don't know what the precise ratio is, but I'm pretty sure JFK's head weighed considerably more than the bullet that penetrated it). The film also clearly shows debris ejecting in front of JFK. Only a bullet fired from behind could have this effect.

The 'headsnap' is therefore irrelevant in determining the direction of the bullet. I'm not even convinced the film shows a headsnap.

Assuming the film wasn't faked (no-one has ever provided any convincing evidence that it was), the shot that hit JFK's head came from behind. Simple.

Thank you Paul,

And here's an analysis by Col. Fletcher Prouty (USAF) and Richard Sprague (the computer guy), who is listed on the Cuban access list of those informed of covert Cuban operations, and assisted in the writing of a NSAMs.

I don't know if I buy all this either, but he speculates that someone was possibly shooting from Dal Tex as well as TSBD.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thegunsofdallas.htm

How the Zapruder Film Created a Time Clock

for the Assassination in Dealey Plaza

Abraham Zapruder's camera was running at a determinable speed: 18.3 frames per second. The camera had a governor control, so its speed was constant. Each frame of the film was 1/18th of a second apart. Since John Kennedy appeared in every frame of the relevant sequence of the film, the FBI was able to plot on a surveyor's map of Dealey Plaza, Kennedy's exact position at each frame number. This "map" perfectly coordinated two functions: time and place -- where Kennedy was at each moment, within 1/18th of a second accuracy, and a distance error of no more than 7.3 inches. The Zapruder film was used to determine the speed of the President's car, the elapsed time between events, especially between the first and last shots (6.8 seconds), and the timing of events in the background.

--Richard E. Sprague

Z denotes Zapruder film and frame number.

And I was wondering if anyone tried to match the Zapruder film with the pertinent segments of the DPD radio transmission tapes?

And the fact that someone found another copy, different from the transcripts?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/

David Dix finds high quality audio cassette of both channels of DPD police radio transmissions at the Minneapolis Public Library, with a card that read: "22 Novemer 1963: THE Dallas Police Tapes Lava Publications, December 1963."

Does anyone know David Dix or Don Willis?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/dix.htm

[Ron Ecker]

Anyone with a basic understanding of Newtonian physics (specifically the principle of the conservation of momentum) will understand that an impacting bullet will not have sufficient momentum to cause any appreciable movement in a target that is much heavier (apologies - I don't know what the precise ratio is, but I'm pretty sure JFK's head weighed considerably more than the bullet that penetrated it).

Then I guess all those, including qualified shooters, who have said time and again that a target will fall in the same direction as the bullet that hits it are Newtonian dumbos. I don't know, I'm not a shooter. All I know is what I read and see in the movies. (I've never figured out why the corrupt cop played by Sterling Hayden in "The Godfather" falls forward when Michael shoots him in the forehead. But then I also don't know why Sonny's no-good brother-in-law falls down from a haymaker thrown by Sonny that doesn't even land. I think it's just bad direction.)

The film also clearly shows debris ejecting in front of JFK. Only a bullet fired from behind could have this effect.

Not according to blood spatter experts. But what do they know?

[William Kelly]

Anyone with a basic understanding of Newtonian physics (specifically the principle of the conservation of momentum) will understand that an impacting bullet will not have sufficient momentum to cause any appreciable movement in a target that is much heavier (apologies - I don't know what the precise ratio is, but I'm pretty sure JFK's head weighed considerably more than the bullet that penetrated it).

Then I guess all those, including qualified shooters, who have said time and again that a target will fall in the same direction as the bullet that hits it are Newtonian dumbos. I don't know, I'm not a shooter. All I know is what I read and see in the movies. (I've never figured out why the corrupt cop played by Sterling Hayden in "The Godfather" falls forward when Michael shoots him in the forehead. But then I also don't know why Sonny's no-good brother-in-law falls down from a haymaker thrown by Sonny that doesn't even land. I think it's just bad direction.)

The film also clearly shows debris ejecting in front of JFK. Only a bullet fired from behind could have this effect.

Not according to blood spatter experts. But what do they know?

Hi Ron,

I'm not an expert either, but when I look at the Z film in motion I sure get the feeling that the head shot is coming from the front.

I also would think that blood splatter analysis of the motorcycle windshield on the left rear and the blow out of the back of the piece of scull that JFK retrieves also indicates a shot from the front.

But what do I know?

I'm willing to accept that I am wrong about the direction of the head shot, based on my gut feeling while viewing the Z film in motion, and that I'm wrong about the blood splatter analysis of the motorcycle windshield and chunk of head on the trunk, and that all of the three shots originated from the Sixth Floor TSBD sniper's nest window.

I'm even willing to be persuaded that the lone gunman was a deranged loner, though I know from the baisic physics of Officer Marion Baker's statements and testimony that person was not Lee Harvey Oswald, who was not wearing a white shirt and didn't have a bald spot, as witnesses described the Sixth Floor sniper. (See Why Oswald is Innocent thread).

With all this energy being applied to the Z film authenticy/alterization debate, if the film was not altered and does portray the murder as it happened, it must tell us more that what we have digested and/or agreed upon so far.

Thanks for your response,

What else does the unaltered Z film tell us?

I'd like to hear from those who have so passionately argued that the film has not been altered and does show the murder as it happened.

Bill Kelly

[Jack White]

Anyone with a basic understanding of Newtonian physics (specifically the principle of the conservation of momentum) will understand that an impacting bullet will not have sufficient momentum to cause any appreciable movement in a target that is much heavier (apologies - I don't know what the precise ratio is, but I'm pretty sure JFK's head weighed considerably more than the bullet that penetrated it). The film also clearly shows debris ejecting in front of JFK. Only a bullet fired from behind could have this effect.

The 'headsnap' is therefore irrelevant in determining the direction of the bullet. I'm not even convinced the film shows a headsnap.

Assuming the film wasn't faked (no-one has ever provided any convincing evidence that it was), the shot that hit JFK's head came from behind. Simple.

Paul...evidently you have not studied the research. Click here...

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html

Jack

[Jack White]

Anyone with a basic understanding of Newtonian physics (specifically the principle of the conservation of momentum) will understand that an impacting bullet will not have sufficient momentum to cause any appreciable movement in a target that is much heavier (apologies - I don't know what the precise ratio is, but I'm pretty sure JFK's head weighed considerably more than the bullet that penetrated it).

Then I guess all those, including qualified shooters, who have said time and again that a target will fall in the same direction as the bullet that hits it are Newtonian dumbos. I don't know, I'm not a shooter. All I know is what I read and see in the movies. (I've never figured out why the corrupt cop played by Sterling Hayden in "The Godfather" falls forward when Michael shoots him in the forehead. But then I also don't know why Sonny's no-good brother-in-law falls down from a haymaker thrown by Sonny that doesn't even land. I think it's just bad direction.)

The film also clearly shows debris ejecting in front of JFK. Only a bullet fired from behind could have this effect.

Not according to blood spatter experts. But what do they know?

Hi Ron,

I'm not an expert either, but when I look at the Z film in motion I sure get the feeling that the head shot is coming from the front.

I also would think that blood splatter analysis of the motorcycle windshield on the left rear and the blow out of the back of the piece of scull that JFK retrieves also indicates a shot from the front.

But what do I know?

I'm willing to accept that I am wrong about the direction of the head shot, based on my gut feeling while viewing the Z film in motion, and that I'm wrong about the blood splatter analysis of the motorcycle windshield and chunk of head on the trunk, and that all of the three shots originated from the Sixth Floor TSBD sniper's nest window.

I'm even willing to be persuaded that the lone gunman was a deranged loner, though I know from the baisic physics of Officer Marion Baker's statements and testimony that person was not Lee Harvey Oswald, who was not wearing a white shirt and didn't have a bald spot, as witnesses described the Sixth Floor sniper. (See Why Oswald is Innocent thread).

With all this energy being applied to the Z film authenticy/alterization debate, if the film was not altered and does portray the murder as it happened, it must tell us more that what we have digested and/or agreed upon so far.

Thanks for your response,

What else does the unaltered Z film tell us?

I'd like to hear from those who have so passionately argued that the film has not been altered and does show the murder as it happened.

Bill Kelly

Bill...an exercise in futility. Click on:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html

Jack

[John Dolva]

The governor is not as precise as one might think, it's mechanical. A full wind up allows for set seconds of filming. At the start the speed governior kicks in and functions more or less as it should to provide an even frame rate. As the spring winds down the time comes when the action of the governor is less and less precice. If Zap started filming earlier then by the time the frames known as the z film were being exposed it would have been in the more stable rate with the governor working properly in the beginning of the known frames. Towards the end, the governor does not work as precicely in conjunction with the spring winding the film, actuating the mechanisms that drive the 'claw' advancing frames, and the speed drops towards the end of the film.

Z did not zoom in and out so the effective 'depth of field' is that which he started with. So as the limo comes closer the view finder is looking at a different place to where the lens film combo is pointing, so the limo is at the lower part of the exposed frames. As the film behaves according to these factors as well as the panning is 'stepped' as zap periodically adjusts for the downward movement of the scene producing shifts in distortions, it has all the hallmarks of an amateur film. Thus I'm inclined to think that the film is authentic.

There are splices which indicate that frames have been reconstructed and/or excised, particularly a complex composite just as Kennedy becomes visible after the stemmons sign. Costellas gross attempts at correcting the lens distortion compresses and alters the data of the frames to the point where these clearly seen composites are more blurred. ie the most altered z version is Costellas version which incredibly is most widely used to 'prove' alteration when it is he who has altered it in the first place.

The frames that the presidential omission published in 64 are useful, and globally available, but only to a point given their method of reproduction and the frames they choose to publish. However the transposing of the headsahot frames in BOTH the z and nix is, IMO, not a mistake but a deliberate, instructed or not, by the final proofreading, in order to give us a clue that all is not as it seems. Kennedy's men, while forced únderground, did at least have this opportunity. There what is NOT shown (as far as published/not published frames) tells us something. AFA the full authentic zfilm goes, I can't comment as I have never seen it.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

John,

Jack has been trying to gently nudge you into looking at some of the research on the film that demonstrates it has been fabricated. I assume you know that it shows a massive blow-out of brains and gore to the left rear. The wound itself is slightly to the right of the center of the back of his head, but the blow-out goes to the left rear, where Officer Hargis, for example, was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. You can find excellent studies of the medical evidence in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).

On another thread, Barb Junkkarinen has argued that the Newmans observed blood and brains on the side of his head. I'm going to assume that you know enough to recognize reports of seeing blood or brains on the side of his head are not the same as descriptions of brains and gore bulging out to the right-front! Which means that the medical evidence contradicts the Zapruder film with respect to its most striking feature, namely: the bulging brains and blood to the right front. Studies of the film may be found at the three URLs that I am giving here:

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

Would you please take a look at John Costella's work here and tell me if you think he's right or wrong? Thanks. I am sure Jack would like to know, too.

The governor is not as precise as one might think, it's mechanical. A full wind up allows for set seconds of filming. At the start the speed governior kicks in and functions more or less as it should to provide an even frame rate. As the spring winds down the time comes when the action of the governor is less and less precice. If Zap started filming earlier then by the time the frames known as the z film were being exposed it would have been in the more stable rate with the governor working properly in the beginning of the known frames. Towards the end, the governor does not work as precicely in conjunction with the spring winding the film, actuating the mechanisms that drive the 'claw' advancing frames, and the speed drops towards the end of the film.

Z did not zoom in and out so the effective 'depth of field' is that which he started with. So as the limo comes closer the view finder is looking at a different place to where the lens film combo is pointing, so the limo is at the lower part of the exposed frames. As the film behaves according to these factors as well as the panning is 'stepped' as zap periodically adjusts for the downward movement of the scene producing shifts in distortions, it has all the hallmarks of an amateur film. Thus I'm inclined to think that the film is authentic.

There are splices which indicate that frames have been reconstructed and/or excised, particularly a complex composite just as Kennedy becomes visible after the stemmons sign. Costellas gross attempts at correcting the lens distortion compresses and alters the data of the frames to the point where these clearly seen composites are more blurred. ie the most altered z version is Costellas version which incredibly is most widely used to 'prove' alteration when it is he who has altered it in the first place.

The frames that the presidential omission published in 64 are useful, and globally available, but only to a point given their method of reproduction and the frames they choose to publish. However the transposing of the headsahot frames in BOTH the z and nix is, IMO, not a mistake but a deliberate, instructed or not, by the final proofreading, in order to give us a clue that all is not as it seems. Kennedy's men, while forced únderground, did at least have this opportunity. There what is NOT shown (as far as published/not published frames) tells us something. AFA the full authentic zfilm goes, I can't comment as I have never seen it.

[John Dolva]

James, left, yes, left rear, not sure. The explosive cavitation and fragment placings indicate a leftward spread. The wind gusts and the limo moving out of this area as zap continues panning gives an appearance of 'rear'. The forward down blowout is in reality an event that ocurred in sub seconds likely below many witnesses line of sight and likely distracted from by the more lingering and spectacular left up fragmentation which is also partly impelled by the snap to the front then flung left which again has other impulsion components such as the wind gust mentioned and the explosive cavitation of the compromised closed container of the skull. The film pans out of this and the wind drives it rearwards. Factor out the wind , the camera panning, the drivers use of brake and accelerator, the springyness of the seat, and other minor factors, it could very well be that the fragment, bloodmist is largely up and to the left. However a proper triangulation of the major fragment dispersal has not been made as the synching is incomplete. I find it interesting that the partial results of such a study (earlier topic attempting such a triangulation using the results from the Missing Nix topic as it stood at that time), indicates the large fragment dispersal is almost perpendicular to a shot from the rear. AFA the URL's go : "Costellas gross attempts at correcting the lens distortion compresses and alters the data of the frames to the point where these clearly seen composites are more blurred. ie the most altered z version is Costellas version which incredibly is most widely used to 'prove' alteration when it is he who has altered it in the first place." As the Limo at this point is peripheral, the distortions are greatest and any distorion correction necessarily alters the data there.

[Jack White]

John...do you agree or disagree with this statement:

"IF the Zapruder film is NOT GENUINE, citing Z frame numbers as evidence of any particular thing is futile."

Yes? No?

AMPLE proofs exist that the z film is a fabrication. See...

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html

...any one of which impeaches the film as evidence.

Jack