More Faked Evidence in the JFK Assassination - Video

I found this video of the JFK Assassination. It talks about how the whole thing was a fake and actually shows you why. I could question it but I believed more then Did not. It makes you think. Plus, why is this the only video that most people see? Where are the other ones? Anyway, I liked this video. It raised more questions for me. Take a look.

If this had been posted before, please forgive me.



www.brasschecktv.com...

Interesting video. Unfortunately, it's full of bad reasoning.

One of the very first claims it makes is that the bystander at 1:27 (the woman in blue) is not looking at the limousine as it passes her. Seems to be true, if you look only when they freeze the frame. But watch it in real time and she is clearly looking at the Kennedys as they pass in front of her. Where they freeze the frame, the limousine has long since passed them. It's the angle of Abe Zapruder's camera, down the street, relative to the limo and the bystander, that makes it appear as if the limo is in front of the bystander at that moment.

Also, notice the running girl in red shorts at 0:43. I don't remember her name, but she testified that she stopped running just after she heard the first gun shot. The woman in blue, at 0:48, is looking in the general direction of the Texas Schoolbook Depository Building possibly thinking that the noise was a car in the motorcade backfiring.

From there, the narrator's claims get a little weird. Let's look at those claims, one by one, as they were listed at 8:36.


1. The pasted freeway sign
The two essential points in claim 1 are that it's focus (or, "lens distortion", as they called it) is different from the limousine and that it doesn't "align in perspective with other objects in the scene". These are the same points made in claims 3 and 4 below, respectively, so I'll get to them in a minute.

One thing the narrator makes a point of is that the limousine passing behind the freeway sign was the opportunity to switch from real video to altered video where, supposedly, the action in the background doesn't match the limo in the foreground. But the limo passed the woman in blue well before the limo passed behind the sign.

On that same score, he makes a point of mentioning Mary Moorman taking her photo as Kennedy passed in front of her in order to point out her apparantly faulty claim that she had stepped into the street to take her photo. But, clearly, Moorman is pointing her camera at the Kennedys and the video even shows the photo she took.

So (as the claim goes), the film goes from real to fake when the limo passes behind the freeway sign. But the woman in blue doesn't match the limo's movements before it passes the sign, and Mary Moorman does match the movement of the limo after it passes the sign.

Conclusion: the entire argument on this point is nonsensical.

2. The large bystanders
The claim is that the bystanders are too large compared to the limo and are thus evidence that the background has been enlarged to mask an overlay.

First of all, if you watch the film in real time you'll see that the bystanders are no larger than the occupants of the limo. The suggestion that they should be much smaller because they further form the camera discounts the fact that Abe Zapruder is much farther from the limo than the bystanders are.

Secondly, the bystanders in the upper half of the frame are much more out of focus than the limo at the bottom. This is mainly because the camera was following the limo against a (so to speak) "moving" background. The blur makes them appear even larger, which brings us to:

3. The painted shadows
The narrator points out that the shadows of the bystanders are blurry in one frame and sharp in the next. Oddly, he argues that this is evidence of them being "painted". But if they were painted, why would they be painted blurry in one frame and sharp in another?

The reason for the inconsistent focus is that the film was shot with an old Bell and Howell 8mm camera with the reel zipping through at 18 frames per second. This is not a Hollywood caliber camera and the film oscillates. The film is more in focus at the bottom of the frame because the bottom spool is pulling the film while the upper spool is simply feeding it at the rate the bottom spool takes it. This accounts for the inconsistent "lens distortion" of the freeway sign, as well.

The part about the guy's legs going from a tight stance to a wide stance in one frame is also misleading. In one frame his legs are blurred and appear to be one massive wide leg while, in the "next frame", his legs are sharp but his feet are about 14" apart. Again, blur is the culprit and, if you watch the complete film in real time, the motion of his legs looks completely natural.

4. The cut-out lamp post
This claim is amusing and relates to the freeway sign in claim 1.

"Although the lamp post passes in front of the limousine, it exhibits no movement in relation to the far background (as it should, being an object much closer in three-dimentional space) to the panning camera."

Oooookay. Movement of the lamp post, relative to the background, would only occur if Zapruder himself were moving relative to the lamp post and far background.
Since Zapruder is standing in one spot and simply panning from left to right, he may as well be filming a painting. Turning the camera doesn't effect the realtive positions of the lamp post to the background.

This is, simultaneously, the funniest and most infuriating claim in the video because it's so dog gone stoopit.

5. The lurching passengers
6. The braking motorcycle
The narrator claims that the driver turned his head twice "faster than is physically possible". Watch the video in real time and you'll see that this is an absurd claim.

The limousine did slow down significantly just before the third shot reached them which is why the motorcycle reached the limo. The narrator claims that this is not evidenced by the Zapruder film, but it seems pretty obvious if you watch the film in real time (just as they ran it several times at the very end of this video) and keep your eye on the grass in the background.

It's also obvious on the Nix film which was taken from the opposite side of the limo and further away.
www.jfk-online.com...

The significant slowing of the limo was also how agent Clint Hill was able to run up and onto the bumper. Unless Hill could run a three-minute mile, there is no question that the limo slowed to about 2 mph. This has never been disputed or covered up, as the narrator seems to imply.

He claims that the braking of the limo "seems to throw Connolly and his wife completely to the floor of the car." The braking was not that sudden, but it was significant enough to lurch the passengers forward in their seats. What happened was that after Kennedy was hit the second time, Nellie Connolly pulled the governor down into their jump seats.

As for who could have altered the film and when:

Three copies of the Zapruder film were made on the afternoon of November 22. Zapruder retained the original and one copy, and gave the other two copies to the Dallas office of the Secret Service for their investigation. Within three days, Life magazine purchased the original film and all rights to it for $150,000 payable in six annual payments of $25,000. Zapruder donated the initial payment of $25,000 to the widow and children of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, who was murdered by Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald when confronted following the assassination.

en.wikipedia.org...

Since Zapruder kept the original until he sold it to Life/Time Inc (who subsequently sold it back to his family for $1 in 1975), and all copies match the original, there was no altering of the film.

An interesting video, yes. But it's long on speculation and short on empirical evidence.


Edit to add Nix link

[edit on 1-8-2008 by Tuning Spork]

reply to post by scottr.

If you have been looking around about the JFK shooting you might have seen this www.youtube.com...

I think he wanted every one in America and the world to know what really goes on behind the closed doors and (they) did not want that

Carn't let the sheep out of the gate