Physical Impossibilities in the Zapruder Film

[Bill Chapman]

Thanks Thomas, I've been doing this for a long time and it's just nonsense claim after nonsense claim and these latest supposed anomalies from Griffith of action x not being able to be completed in time y are just absurd, yet every time I prove each and every one of my re-futations with graphic after graphic it's just ignored for another problem that he thinks he sees, there is no way to argue with these people mostly because they lack the expertise to analyse images/videos and thus cannot illustrate their alternative ideas as a response, so until they're blue in the face they just keep repeating the same unsubstantiated claims. -sigh-

JohnM

What are you talking about? These guys are almost genuises!

[Michael Walton]

To Michael Griffith,

You may want to read the Zavada report. In it, it was shown that the original Z film was not altered in any way. Despite what other researchers think, it would have been technically impossible to alter a home movie that was 8mm in size.

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

----

You may want to view this synced video of Z and Nix:

You have to ask yourself how it'd be possible to alter one film and then have to alter the other film to make them match. It'd be impossible to do technically.

----

Here's a film produced by the SS in 1964:

So if the film was altered, why wouldn't they include the altered film in this government film they made? Except for the Z film being in B/W it looks exactly like the film we have all seen today. Skip to about 11:38.

[John Mytton]

To Michael Griffith,

You may want to read the Zavada report. In it, it was shown that the original Z film was not altered in any way. Despite what other researchers think, it would have been technically impossible to alter a home movie that was 8mm in size.

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

----

You may want to view this synced video of Z and Nix:

You have to ask yourself how it'd be possible to alter one film and then have to alter the other film to make them match. It'd be impossible to do technically.

----

Here's a film produced by the SS in 1964:

So if the film was altered, why wouldn't they include the altered film in this government film they made? Except for the Z film being in B/W it looks exactly like the film we have all seen today. Skip to about 11:38.

Yep, not one Zapruder frame has been altered in any way, wysiwyg.

JohnM

[Michael Walton]

Yes, John, yes. What the film *actually* shows is highly suspicious. But, yes, the film itself was not altered, which is why it was kept away from public viewing for 12 long years. Put another way, I often wonder what would have happened if the film had been shown to the public that very day. Do you ever wonder why it didn't happen, John?

[Steve Barber]

Yes, John, yes. What the film *actually* shows is highly suspicious. But, yes, the film itself was not altered, which is why it was kept away from public viewing for 12 long years. Put another way, I often wonder what would have happened if the film had been shown to the public that very day. Do you ever wonder why it didn't happen, John?

 I know why it wasn't shown that day.  Because of the graphic nature of the film.   Besides, the contract Zapruder made with Life Magazine, stipulated that it not be made public.    Things were far, far different in 1963 than they are now, and stuff like this was far too graphic to show on TV.  Over the years, people became desensitized to such violence, so now it's not a big deal. It just shows how decadent society has become.   And i see nothing "suspicious" about what the film "actually shows".  May I ask what you expect it to show?

[John Mytton]

I know why it wasn't shown that day.  Because of the graphic nature of the film.   Besides, the contract Zapruder made with Life Magazine, stipulated that it not be made public.    Things were far, far different in 1963 than they are now, and stuff like this was far too graphic to show on TV.  Over the years, people became desensitized to such violence, so now it's not a big deal. It just shows how decadent society has become.   And i see nothing "suspicious" about what the film "actually shows".  May I ask what you expect it to show?

Things were far, far different in 1963 than they are now, and stuff like this was far too graphic to show on TV.

 

JohnM

[Thomas Graves]

JohnM

Error in the narration of the motorcade reenactment: The fatal headshot occurred when the limo was about 85 YARDS down the road, not feet.  Sheez.

Please note that Tina Towner told Max Holland she recollected the limo's not swinging quite so wide as it's depicted coming out of the curve in the reenactment. If true, this would have placed the traffic light's mast arm more directly over JFK (from the assassin's POV) as the limo passed under it.

Also, I think the box FBI Special Agent Joe Howlett is sitting on was actually a bit farther away from the window, making it a perfect "stool" for the assassin to sit on (and lean foward from while monitoring the approach of the motorcade). Regardless, the assassin would have had to stand up to take the first, sharply-downward-angled shot, be it at 1.4 seconds before Z133, or closer to Z133, itself, as Vicki Adam's seems to have suggested to James Leavelle in February of 1964, and many years latter to Barry Ernest.

--  MWT 

[Michael T. Griffith]

And then there is the very noticeable odd round black spot on the right-rear part of JFK's head, which appears in Z314 and for many frames afterward. I noticed this black spot when I first began to study the JFK case, before I was even aware of the debate about the Zapruder film's authenticity. You have to be blind not to be able to see the black spot. It is very noticeable. And notice how it contrasts with the rest of the head, especially with JFK's brown hair.