Jump to content
The Education Forum

Possibly the easiest-to-understand proof that the Zapruder and/or Nix film was altered.


Recommended Posts

(I think this proof is well known, but it didn't convince me at first because of the way it was worded. I will change it slightly.)

The first frame below is frame 380 of the Zapruder film, and the second frame is the corresponding frame of the Nix film exposed at virtually same time. These frames both show Jackie reaching out as far as did before pulling back and getting back in her seat.

 

z380.jpg

Zapruder
 

Screen-Shot-2018-07-16-at-3.18.58-PM.png

Nix

 

These two frames are supposed to be showing the very same scene, albeit from different angles.

Now, notice the distance between Jackie's head and the Secret Service man's head. In the Zapruder frame they are about four feet apart. But in the Nix frame, the two heads are so close that they appear to be touching!

How can this be?

The only way this scene could be viewed such that the heads appear to be so near each other is if the cameraman were close to being behind the limo when filming. Perhaps on the sidewalk where we see the man sitting. Yes, at such an acute viewing angle the heads would appear to be close to each other. But obviously Nix's viewing angle is not acute at all, and in fact is close to Zapruder's viewing angle from the other side.

This is proof positive that one or both the films have been altered.

(Man, that was easy.)

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I wasn't convinced by this proof before is that I was asked to compare how far Jackie's reach was in the two films. It seemed a little farther in the Nix frame to me, but I couldn't tell for sure. So I let it go.

I hope that this version of the proof is as convincing to others as it is to me.

I invite all skeptics to try and show how my simple analysis is wrong.  I don't believe they can.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy has overlooked the fact that Hill is grabbing the bar on the driver's side of the car, while Jackie is leaning over slightly to Hill's right. This would create a larger apparent distance between the two heads from Zapruder's point of view than from Nix's.

To put it another way, imagine that you are looking at the scene from directly above the car. Draw lines from Zapruder's line of sight and Nix's line of sight, and see if the relative positions of the two heads match what we see in the frames Sandy has posted. I suspect they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sandy Larsen changed the title to Possibly the easiest-to-understand proof that the Zapruder and/or Nix film was altered.
Posted (edited)

Yes, you guys are right.

The fact that Hill was so far to the left side of the car and Jackie was closer to the center made it so that Nix's angle, although roughly the same as Zapruder's on the other side, was acute enough to make it look like the heads were touching. No need for the photographer to be on the sidewalk, as I had thought.

Somebody needs to tell Jeff Morley to remove this "proof" from his site. He doesn't endorse it openly, but you can tell it gives him pause.

I'm going back to my "simple proof" that has turned out to be less simple than I'd thought. (Only two or three people seem to get it.) At least it still hasn't been disproven.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Paul Bacon said:

But her back, from her rear end to the top of her head, is much flatter in the Nix frame than the Z frame.  Is this an illusion too?

Paul,

The timing of the Zapruder frame can be off from the timing of the Nix frame by a fraction of a second. As a matter of fact, when I was searching the Z film for the frame that comes closest to the Nix frame, I judged Z381 to be the closest. But that frame has problems and so I chose to post Z380 instead.

Maybe Jackie changed the arch in her back between the times of the two frames.

But jeez, if one camera indicates a 4 foot distance between heads while the other indicates 0 feet, it wouldn't surprise me if the angles of the cameras portray the back arch differently too.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/26/2022 at 4:06 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

This is proof positive that one or both the films have been altered.

Here's proof positive that Sandy is grossly and profoundly incorrect. For additional comic relief, there's a poster in this same thread named "Jake Maxwell" who is giving John Butler a run for his "everything is altered and the tops of cars are reversed and the Babushka Lady is two different people and one was erased from the films" money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a recreation of Jackie on the trunk in Nix and Z. If not conclusive I think it shows the different angles and elevation of Nix and Z's camera's can account for the apparent variation in Jackie's location.
 I had to edit the recreations a bit because I made the limo too wide for Jackie's size, it is now accurate.
 Her forearm is low on the trunk in the Nix view but may be perceived as higher from Z's perspective. First her elbow is pointed away from Z so we see no angle at the elbow to judge it's height above the trunk. The only way to know the elbow height from Z's view is to make an assumption about where her elbow is. The only clue is the crease in her clothing at the elbow or the smaller look of the sleeve at the elbow. Two problems with that. first the bright background of the street shrinks the sleeve on the sides. Second the crease maybe the elbow but the images is very blurry.
 I think the crease position in the Z recreation is at the same place as the actual Z frame. The forearm and upper arm seem to match the recreation.
  The point of the diagram at the bottom is to show where Jackie's head would line up with the handholds, red for Nix and blue fro Z.1753279890_jackietrunkfinallow.thumb.jpg.ebf914d3d5dfea9dca2088dbe1dde4a1.jpg
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris - yes, it's simply the parallax effect. The relative positions of objects can appear to change when the objects are viewed from different angles. This is a perfect example of nothing to see here. Or, as Sandy would put it, proof positive of alteration. Take your pick!

Jonathan - thanks for that link! The Ed Forum clearly doesn't have a monopoly on clueless photo interpretation. Maybe that 'Jake Maxwell' character is actually John Butler in disguise, or vice versa.

I'm not fully convinced that some of these people aren't just winding the rest of us up. Take someone like Butler: how does one tell whether he's being serious or not? All the films and photos from Dealey Plaza are fakes, there were three or four Oswalds ... it could easily be a practical joke, couldn't it? Surely no-one can genuinely believe that sort of thing?

It's a shame that a serious historical event is treated this way, by people who are either clueless or jokers. More worryingly, casual visitors might stumble across the far-fetched stuff and think that these people represent the bulk of Warren Commission critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2022 at 3:49 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jonathan - thanks for that link! The Ed Forum clearly doesn't have a monopoly on clueless photo interpretation. Maybe that 'Jake Maxwell' character is actually John Butler in disguise, or vice versa.

Once again Jeremy is wrong with his outrageous claims.  I seem to be living in his head rent free when he is making comparisons.  If Jeremy is basing his reasoning on Chris' work than his reasoning is as flawed as Chris' work.

chris-b-compare-jackie-zaprude-nix-1.jpg

The position of Chris' dummy does not match either the Zapruder frame or the Nix frame.  In 1 Chris has the dummy's arm out from under her body while Zapruder shows it is under her body.  In 2 he doesn't show the arm at all.  In Nix the arm is up in the air clutched by Clint Hill.

I don't think Sandy is wrong at all.  This demonstration by Chris does not prove anything.  Jeremy's outrageous claims generally lack proof, but are not short on fantasy claims.  The images don't relate to each film frame.  I don't think parallax views are appropriate here as an explanation.  I am more inclined towards the Zapruder frame not matching the Nix frame.  They are different events happening in a short period of time.  The images do not match. 

Sorry Chris,

For the bluntness.  I think you need to rework your demonstration with the correct positioning of the arms.  I'll look forward to that.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have watched the whole Clint/Jackie frames in Zapruder one frame at a time.  I don't see the scene, No. 2 in Nix, at all in Zapruder.  Scene No. 2 in Nix has Clint grasping Jackie's arm high in the air above the trunk.

chris-b-compare-jackie-zaprude-nix-1.jpg

I didn't see that in Zapruder.  I have went through the frames twice.  I will do that a third time and see if anything changes.

What I see is this.

zapruder-nix-compare-jackies-arms.jpg

I don't think this is parallax viewing.  Nix has different frames then Zapruder.  Zapruder lacks the Nix frame showing Jackie's arm in the air clutched by Clint.  

 

Edited by John Butler
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...