Talk:Zapruder film/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

style

"[..] at Z-313 when President Kennedy's head first explodes."

exploding heads? Jesus, I think someone should rewrite that; what do you think?

Agreed. I've toned it down. Rufous 15:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree....it's a shame I'm too lazy. This certainly felt like a rather different article....I'm not sure how to explain it --Joewithajay 21:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Unclear

The following section:

In 1998, the original film was "taken" by the United States government under the doctrine of eminent domain and, as required by the U.S. Constitution, pay to Zapruder's heirs was attempted. Because the film is unique, the film's value was difficult to ascertain; eventually, following arbitration, the government purchased the film for $16,000,000. Following the taking, the Zapruder family donated the film's copyright to The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, along with all copies of the films once held by Life magazine. The Zapruder family retains no rights of any kind to the film, which is administered by the Museum.

Is rather confusing to me. SO, the government sorta "buys" the film from the family, but then the family gives the copyright to a museum. If the works becomes government property, wouldn't it mean that it becomes Public Domain of some sort? Then how come the family can give the copyright to another entity? Feureau 05:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The goverment took/bought only the physical film, not the (copy)rights to it. These, the Zapruder family retained, and donated. SBHarris 03:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV must prevail

There are many who support one side and many who support the other. I believe the particular claimant you refer to is an engineer and theoretical physicist with a phd in the latter. He is derided on some web sites as a school teacher but at least one wiki page has him working for the Department of Defense. I cannot find the technical qualifications of those supporting authenticity (other than Zavada). The published book would have to be referred to rather than the simplified website.

Given that there is no consensus a NPOV approach is all that can be done. Those aspects of the film that are not in dispute must be presented without loaded language. I have made some edits and added pro-authenticity references to balance but removing all of it by reversion gives a strongly pro-government POV.

AbrahamZapruder 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

All you needed to do was ask ...

I see the usual suspects here hiding behind anonymity, making life difficult for the good folk at wiki.

I you have any questions about my work, or qualifications, or the film, then all you had to do was ask. My email address is plastered all over the internet (jpcostella@hotmail.com) and my phone number (+61 3 5973 6929) and street address (9 Summerfield Drive, Mornington, Victoria 3931, Australia) are in more than a few places too. It seems like that wasn't enough, so here I am in wikispace too. :)

By all means, ask questions here and I will address them. I understand that wiki is a neutral encyclopaedia so I will try to answer in that spirit.

DrJohnPCostella 03:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, what usual suspects are those? I'm no more anonymous here than you are. Okay, you're here and my hat's off to you for having the integrity to be "here" in person. You've read the arguments against you: [1]. You've seen the TV video interview of the shocked Zapruder on the day of the assassination, before his film was developed (one frame of which TV video interview is shown in the wiki on Abraham Zapruder). In that interview, Zapruder says he has the film with him, still in camera, and that he saw the president's head "practically open up" (in other interviews he says "explodes") and indicates the point on the head, at which this happens. That's over the right ear, and there's a photo from the TV video of Zapruder pointing to that place. This photo does not lie-- I've seen that video of Zapruder pointing to the side of his head over the right ear, many times. Later, when Zapruder's film was developed, it showed precisely that. Zapruder lived seven more years and over that time had many opportunities to view his own film, and did. He had every opportunity to say "Hey, that's not what my film showed when I first saw it!" but he didn't. He also (even more importantly) had many opportunities to say "HEY! That's NOT what I SAW!!" but he didn't. But here you are, saying he should have. What gives?

Oh, and by the way, while you're at it, I'm sure you can look at the whole image of the car as the two secret service men up front, and the Connally's, all simultaneously seem to be thrown forward. Your explanation is that this can't be, because the car doesn't actually slow at that point. Correct. What you're seeing is four people simultaneously duck and cringe at the sound of a rifle shot and a spray of blood, which is what happens just at the point before they all do it. Not remarkable at all. SBHarris 07:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Harris. That interview of Tink Thompson that you refer to is from 1998, three years before I entered the assassination research community, and five years before the Duluth Zapruder Film Symposium and the publication of the book. I find it hard to see how that is an argument against me; it's simply a regurgitation of the official history. All this is discussed in great detail in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. You have read it, I presume?

The most complete set of arguments against me and the other contributors to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax is the one I rebutted on my website, when all the 'gang' contributed. I think it's on Joe Durnavich's website.

Look, I have to say at this point that I have a substantial piece of work related to the authenticity issue, that won't be ready for another month or two, but it will be much easier to relate to than the laws of physics and so on. But I will answer the questions you raise with what I have already published or posted. I was given a heads-up that I should make an appearance here to defend my good name. I don't really care about you slagging off about me, but I'd prefer that wikipaedia gets a relatively balanced view of the Zapruder film controversy.

The Zapruder television interview is an interesting one. He is the only eyewitness to the assassination who ever claimed that JFK clutched at his chest. This claim is not only in the TV appearance you mention, but also in his WC testimony and elsewhere. He also describes the exact position -- the right temple (unless I am to believe the "spinning head" theory I just read above -- interesting one, which I had not come across before) -- exploding out, as you say. This is exactly what you see on the extant Zapruder film. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be another single eyewitness who described the head explosion in that way (apart, perhaps, his secretary in her 1966 interview with the same Tink Thompson you refer to -- and Zapruder and Sitzman really need to be taken as a pair). Even the Secret Service agents talk about the rright rear of his head being taken out (as the Parkland Hospital witnesses describe). But we're not getting into that debate here.

It is not clear what part the man Abraham Zapruder played. It also isn't clear that the extant version of that TV interview was the "live" interview broadcast on that day. Without VCRs in 1963, and without any chain of custody for any of this photographic evidence (including that TV interview), we can only go by what was published in mass-market publications (eg the frames in LIFE). It is not clear that what we are looking at is not a recreated interview, just as the false 'Altgens' photo of 'Zapruder' and 'Sitzman' getting off the pedestal seems to have been a recreation after the event.

You will be aware (from reading The Great Zapruder Film Hoax) that there are only a few extant photographs of Abe Zapruder. In one, he is shown filming through his camera. Problem is, his eye is not looking through the viewfinder at all. And, as you'd well know (having used one of those 414's, right?), it is not possible to see properly through that viewfinder with spectacles on.

You say that Zapruder didn't claim that the extant film disagrees with what he saw? Have you actually read his WC deposition? He barely recognised "his" film. It's not appropriate to cut and paste his testimony here -- you can find it for yourself on the internet. He essentially states that the frames they showed him could not have been from the film he took.

The key point is NOT that Zapruder did not take a film. He may well have. The key point is that the film now produced as the "Zapruder" film is not authentic, in my opinion and the opinion of many. We have published the evidence supporting this claim. Others disagree. As far as I know, no published book has addressed the arguments in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (and it's been out for three years now).

I understand that these claims are not (yet) widely accepted. I can wear that. As noted, there is material upcoming that will make the situation much clearer. Unfortunately I cannot give you more on that until it is done.

Now ... I thought we were going to discuss the question of my credentials, or why my website introduction is so much more simplified than the published version? I'm sure the wiki people don't want a huge discussion. This is a contentious issue, and the pros and cons are debated in numerous books and website, some of which are listed (or appear to be listed some of the time) on this wiki page.

DrJohnPCostella 09:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no controversy. You have a vested interest to promote your website and book on wikipedia. Good luck on your work, but wikipedia is not the place to drive web traffic to your site. Please see; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and No original research- what is excluded for the wikipolicy. If wikipedia allowed original research it's articles would quickly become little more than extensions of peoples personal webpages and theories. In short, cacophony and chaos. Using your website as a reference is not a question of your credentials but is a question of verifiability of the information. If CNN reports on new evidence that the Zapruder film is an airbrushed hoax that covers up the 'truth' of the fatal shot coming from the front, then that will be a different matter. But until then, the community that questions the truthfulness of the Z-Film seems to be very small and doesn't warrant a mention in this article. Anyone who wants to insert text that questions the fact that the Z-Film depicts reality is going to be butting up against wikipolicy and those statements will probably not remain on the page for long. Mytwocents 19:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, mytwocents, I don't have a vested interest promoting 'my' book or my website on wiki. I don't get a cent from either. I have simply provided information to the general public about my findings with respect to the Z film. If wiki wants to refer to it to present a neutral and balanced account of the state of knowledge, then so be it. I didn't think that the wiki page contained my original research -- if it does, it should be deleted, because that material is copyrighted by the publishers. There should only be references to it.

My Z film research was done on my own time purely out of my personal interest. I contributed to the Symposium and the book as any other academic contributes to the sum of human knowledge. In this case (unlike my physics research), it wasn't paid research. But the processes are the same. If presenting scientific research is somehow 'marketing' something, then the World Wide Web has seriously becaome a sad and warped place since my fellow physicists invented it in 1992. Maybe I was wrong to side with those who argued that commercial sites should be allowed on the web ...

If you have serious concerns about the published research, then by all means ask. The book was published three years ago. It has not, to my knowledge, been refuted in any published form, or by any web authors with scientific credentials. If you know of any such refutations, then please let me know.

I find it interesting that you would believe a CNN reporter rather than a scientist. Where would CNN get such a story? Would the reporter have applied his or her vast knowledge of ... journalism ... to determine whether the film was a fake or not? I think you have your wires crossed. Are you a scientist? In fact, who the hell ARE you?

Look, I came here because I was told that I was (again) being maligned by the usual suspects, that my existence, or background, or credibility, or qualifications, were being called into question. Ask me about those questions, and I'll answer you. I didn't think I was supposed to debate scientific technicalities with you (or your CNN journalist). If the wiki hierarchy wants to present a U.S.-government biassed version of the Z film, then let them go right to it. Wikipaedia will be seen as yet another manipulated tool of propaganda, and its credibility will disappear down the toilet. I didn't think the wiki people wanted '1984'.

I hope that there is a JFK assassination page in which you parrot the Warren Commission version of events and purge out all contrary views. Anything less would be against your dogmatic view of the world.

DrJohnPCostella 00:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no “wiki hierarchy”. We all contribute—that's how wikipedia works. You can contribute too—but I recommend you read the policies before you do.

AbrahamZapruder 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can? You've heard the old engineering joke about things designed by a committee, haven't you? ...

I had a similar idea back around 1997, but I never published it. The idea was that users vote their approval or otherwise of other users. You build up a 'tree' of 'authority' based on this voting procedure, using some reasonable rules to transfer 'credibility' up the chain. I thought it probably wouldn't work -- would be too easily abused. (I note that arxiv.org has brought in something similar to this.) Is there a similar voting process here?

The article is full of half-truths. Like 'Zapruder testified that he filmed the motorcade'. Sure he did, but he didn't recognise his own film. But I suppose a half-truth is better than an untruth if it allows all possibilities.

I don't see the use of Wrone's book in there -- it's so riddled with errors that it's more trouble than it's worth. There are much better accounts of the government version of its history (like Tink Thompson's, listed above). Wrone wrote his book in 2003 but only addressed questions that were brought up in Assassination Science (1998). What use is that? I disproved most of those early claims myself when I first entered the assassination research community in 2001-2. It was only because Jim Fetzer welcomed my proofs that his contributors were wrong -- rather than attacking me -- that I agreed to be a part of the Zapruder Film Symposium that eventuated in May 2003.

DrJohnPCostella 02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I inserted a 'self published' tag into the article. This is the diff of my last edit which removed all of the adcruft and statements that don't meet wiki's standard of verifiability. I think we need to go back to this version. This page is not an extention of conspiracy theory web pages. Mytwocents 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

put it in

Information regarding the possible hoax should be included in this article. The article is not that long and contains quick links to jump to sections/headings. To exclude this information *until proven false* is a complete and blatant example of making the article bias. To not include it, being that it is relevant and seriously significant, would be a complete slap in the face to wikipedia and what it stands for. The service is free...why are we acting like we cannot spare the room, especially with such a serious allegation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mine187 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Infobox

I added a film infobox. It seems a bit morbid to put JFK and Jackie as the "stars" - but it also seems accurate. Thoughts? Gillian416 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Film infoboxes for snuff films? How novel. I would question the taste, however. SBHarris 19:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the infobox, it is clearly intended to be used to give information on movies, not video of this type. There was no budget, no "stars," no "director" (he was simply filming, not really directing). JCO312 17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a film, not a video. No amateur video cameras back then. — Walloon 20:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first line describes it as a "home movie." It's clearly not a commercial film, which is what the film info box is intended for. JCO312 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Drop the loaded 'conspiracy theories' tag please

Outrageous pro-government edits were made by your predecessors. NPOV demands that unsubstantiated and disputed claims be qualified. It would be like starting the Lee Harvey Oswald page with 'Oswald shot JFK' and then leaving the 'authenticity' of this claim to some minor section.

The authenticity of the Zapruder film is central to its importance.

The U-tube link deletion was accidental. Apologies.

You need to look at the pro-government ranks for the 'meatpuppets'.

Have you read the claims (on both sides) before making your statements? They are referenced here (restored).

We'll run a checkuser on you. If you're not a sockpuppet you have nothing to worry about, do you?

You didn't delete a U-tube link, but one of the few Z film links which doesn't require quicktime or U-tube. I've put it back yet again. Stop removing it.

I'll read your references before further editing, but those I've read are nonsensical. Moorman can be seen in Z's film, behind JFK. Z can be seen in Moorman's photo. Both Z and Sitzman testified to doing the film, and their film is consistant with Nix. This is a really gigantic conspiracy, and Z had to be in on it, since he testified on TV to what he saw, which is exactly what the film shows, before the film was even developed. As you can see in his bio. SBHarris 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This may be trolling, but has to be said, "We'll run a checkuser on you" looks to me like censorship and POV pushing in the name of "editing" Who appointed you to be the sole bastion of JFK history and lore whose gates all articles must pass? Anyone can edit in WP, if the information is credible and verifiable, it doesn't need yours or anyone elses blessing to be written. If a lock is placed on a page, who has final say / censorship of any edits?208.254.130.235 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, where's the beef?

One of the better views of the JFK's head wound in shown in a site which claims the film is a complete fake, made up of a string of separate faked stills, stop-motion style: [2]. I urge perusal of it. Amazingly, this site makes all kinds of claims that the images violate laws of physics and optics, mostly on the assumption that they so if the bullet came from behind. Which we can't have! Perish the thought. One of the more intesting claims is that the 314 frame shows that JFK's forehead is completely destroyed, when everybody, including all the people who examined him later, of course say it was intact. But the film shows no such thing. JFK's head is rotated to the left. What I think I see is the top of his head blasted off, right of centerline and above the ear, and after that I see his exposed brain, and a very big triangular flap of scalp (with some white underside which may partly be dura mater, and also some red underside) which hangs down and covers the side of his head, including the ear. Take a look for yourself. Simply because JFK's face is underneath this, rotated away, and hidden from view, conspiracy theorists tell you here that it doesn't exist, and has been blown away on the fake film. How naive is that: you can't see something, so it must be gone? Hello? These people must really enjoy Las Vegas magic shows. Anyway, I encourage the reader to have a look. Agent Greer said JFK's head looked "like a boiled egg with the top chopped off" and that's more or less what the Z film and the X-rays show. It's not what we see in the autopsy photos, but by that time the big scalp flap had been moved back up to cover most of this (though we do have a description of the very large hole it covers in the autopsy, and we do see that JFK's brain is exposed just to the right of the centerline, before you see scalp hiding it). But there are many long strings of scalp hanging down (some from underneath others) to indicate that there's a lot of scalp in ribbons and it hasn't all been put back. The morticians testified later that when they did reconstruct the skull and put all the scalp back, the only thing missing was a small patch in the very rear of JFK's head, on the part the head would rest on, on a pillow, so it wasn't in the side area at all (and didn't need to be replaced with a wig). We are left with the inescapable probability that most of JFK scalp, and certainly all that on the side of his head, remained attached in one way or another. And in the Z film, you see it all.

The question is, what to do with all this? As you read the wiki, you see that some people claim the Z film violates all kinds of physical laws. If you read the arguments as to why somebody thinks so, they seem very childish. So perhaps the matter needs to be discussed within the article, in more detail. As it is, the reader is left with some doubt. Why would anybody claim such a thing, if the evidence wasn't really good? Well, because the claimant is nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reason. Since the claimant is not a wikipedia editor, I can say that without violating WP:CIVIL, but as I have noted before, there are nutty and paranoid people in the world with fixed delusions about every significant event in history, and such people WILL make claims to CLEARLY SEE something in a film, which simply is not clearly there. As here. SBHarris 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And just what does an exit wound look like when compared to an entrance wound? Why would a patch be missing? The autopsy photos show ribbins and the Z film shows a distinct flap hanging down. Why was the body illegaly flown from Tx to Wash DC where the post mortem was conducted by less than an expert pathologist. How did the body leave Dallas wrapped in a sheet and placed in a casket arrrive in Wash DC in a body bag placed in a totally different casket? Where is the chain of custody? How often do bullets just drop out of bodies in pristine condition? Who is "They" Connelly referred to? If these are "childish" questions then what kind of evidence do we need for convictions in the US? Looks to me like "reasonable doubt" can be placed on the "lone assassin theory" and that alone is enough to set Oswald free, whether or not if he were guilty208.254.130.235 (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

Harris Answer to Costella

Costella: Thanks, Mr. Harris. That interview of Tink Thompson that you refer to is from 1998, three years before I entered the assassination research community, and five years before the Duluth Zapruder Film Symposium and the publication of the book. I find it hard to see how that is an argument against me; it's simply a regurgitation of the official history. All this is discussed in great detail in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. You have read it, I presume?

• Harris: No. First I read reveiws to see if books are worth reading. Here’s one on Amazon on that book, by Josiah Thompson (author of Six Seconds in Dallas) which has some stuff about you, which I found interesting, since I don’t know you from Adam.

John Costella, a high school math teacher from Australia with a Ph.D. in physics, visits Dealey Plaza in company with another contributor, Jack White. They see a metallic cylinder attached to a highway sign in the Plaza. Costella includes in his essay nine pages of text and pictures (223-232) arguing that the cylinder is a "listening device" placed there by the U. S. government to spy on people like Jack White and himself. The listening device is actually a rain sensor placed in Dealey Plaza by Dallas Parks and Recreations to turn off the sprinklers when it rains! Costella also claims in this book that the U.S. government sabotaged his razor and messed with his shirts during a recent visit to the U.S. With respect to the assassination, Costella claims that Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman were not standing on that concrete pedestal. Rather, standing on the pedestal was the "coordinator of the assassination" who also used his position there to film at least part of the shooting (216).

• [Harris] Is this your correct view? You know, both Zapruder and his assistant Sitzman were just ordinary folks who had fairly ordinary jobs (though Z was head of his own company) in a building across the street from the Texas School Depository, and had had these long before JFK decided to go to Dallas. Do you think they were CIA plants of some kind? If Z and Sitzman weren’t on that pedestal, where the devil were they? Why are they lying? And who ARE the man and woman we see standing there? Ah, you say the Altgens photo of them is faked, too. Altgens the professional news photographer (the only one at Dealey Plaza that day). That’s some plant, too. So the conspiracy widens. But wait—there’s a photo by Hugh Betzner, Jr. which shows the JFK car just before it passes between the pedestal and the Stemons sign. And on the correct pedestal of the Bryan north pergola are a man in a dark suit with something in front of his face, and a woman in a skirt and what apperas to be a light head scarf behind him. Sure looks like Zapruder and Sitzman. So that photo’s faked. Unless there were TWO coordinators of the assassination, one in drag. The same two figures in the same position show up in Willis slide #5 taken at just about the same time from near the same position. So HIS slide must be fake. I see TWO figures there also in the Nix motion film. Also must be a fake. And so on. There they are on the Bronson slide also, taken a couple of seconds before the JFK limo (at right of the slide) reaches Z’s position (at left, and there’s our man and woman right where they ought to be). A fake as well?

You seem to place a lot of faith in Tink Thompson's view of the world. That says a lot in itself.

I recommend you read the book itself rather than Tink's review of it. He is, to put it mildly, biassed.

The rainsensors were left in there to detect those more interested in disinformation than the case itself -- those 'playing the man, not the ball'. You certainly are falling into the first category.

I repeat that there is more work coming soon that will clarify the authenticity of the photographic record. You know that Muchmore stated that she never took a film at all ... Bronson's film and slide magically appeared in the late 1970s.

The Zapruder television interview is an interesting one. He is the only eyewitness to the assassination who ever claimed that JFK clutched at his chest. This claim is not only in the TV appearance you mention, but also in his WC testimony and elsewhere. He also describes the exact position -- the right temple (unless I am to believe the "spinning head" theory I just read above -- interesting one, which I had not come across before) -- exploding out, as you say. This is exactly what you see on the extant Zapruder film. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be another single eyewitness who described the head explosion in that way (apart, perhaps, his secretary in her 1966 interview with the same Tink Thompson you refer to -- and Zapruder and Sitzman really need to be taken as a pair).

• As a pair of WHAT? Again, CIA plants? Really deep moles from Imperial Russia (in Z's case) and USSR? What? Recently, our OTHER single-issue Z editor from Australia (Posting as user:AbrahamZapruder—hey that would be a sockpuppet of you, would it?) actually removed the hyperlink to Sitzman because he said she doesn’t merit a Wiki bio. If you’re right in what you believe, she certainly does! She deserves a background check as deep as Oswald’s. And Zapruder also. Right? Yes, Sitzman did tell Josiah Thompson in 1966 that the bullet hit JFK in the right temple area “above the ear and to the front…between the eye and ear.” You’re wrong that she’s the only one. Highway Patrolman Hurchel Jacks who drove the Johnson limo saw JFK’s body in the car before it was moved into Parkland and filed a report which is in the WC Report, reporting a wound “above the right ear or near the temple.” Seth Kantor, a news reporter who saw the body at Parkland, reported a right temple wound. Oddly, TWO Parkland doctors reported the wound being in the LEFT temple (Dr McClelland and Dr Maron Jenkins)—you can read all this in Lifton. The simplest explanation is they got left and right reversed. Oh, and by the way there’s a fairly famous photo of Malcolm Kilduff, the press secretary, showing the wound location with his hand to reporters. He in just about exactly the same position as Zapruder in the TV interview and his hand is showing the same spot: above the right ear. Wonder where he got the info?

Even the Secret Service agents talk about the rright rear of his head being taken out (as the Parkland Hospital witnesses describe). But we're not getting into that debate here.

• Yes, but right rear means different things to different people, and the entire right upper quadrant of JFK’s rear skull was blown out. If the front part of this wound was later covered by scalp it easily explains the discrepancy. The autopsy lays this matter to rest.

Zapruder and Sitzman most likely saw the "Zapruder" film at various times. Zapruder refused to recognise his own film, even saying that his portrayal in the Willis slide must be him if it was an authentic photograph and hadn't been retouched. In other words, Abe himself may have been the first person to suggest that the photographic evidence had been tampered with.

It is not clear what part the man Abraham Zapruder played. It also isn't clear that the extant version of that TV interview was the "live" interview broadcast on that day. Without VCRs in 1963, and without any chain of custody for any of this photographic evidence (including that TV interview), we can only go by what was published in mass-market publications (eg the frames in LIFE).

• Oh, nonsense! This is a video of a man speaking with characteristic voice and accent, and making gestures, etc. You think you could fake such a thing well enough to fool a family, even with today’s technology? No. (Especially since this is probably the only voice-video of Zapruder which exists, so what are the fakers going to use?) Humans are too good at recognizing people they know. Zapruder’s not with us any more since 1970, but his family and plenty who knew him, are. And this video’s been on TV many, many times. So you “don’t need no stinkin’ chain of evidence.” You just need ONE person who knew Zapruder well in life, to say that’s not him on this TV-interview. But it is, obviously, him.

THis is going nowhere fast. I never said it wasn't Zapruder. I said it may not have been a film of the live broadcast.

This is degenerating into the red-herring flame war that Tink and his followers love to propagate. I doubt that this wiki page has much future. As I surmised in 1997, this form of information is far too easily abused -- kids in their bedroom with too much spare time on their hands will always out-spam those with genuine knowledge.

It is not clear that what we are looking at is not a recreated interview, just as the false 'Altgens' photo of 'Zapruder' and 'Sitzman' getting off the pedestal seems to have been a recreation after the event.

• Altgens the news photographer is in on the plot? A recreated interview? Why would Zapruder say in a re-created interview that he still had the film in his camera? Don't you think the Dallas TV station would have some words about whether they had a recreated interview in their archives, acted as though it was done on Nov. 22? Come on-- this is getting completely ridiculous.

You will be aware (from reading The Great Zapruder Film Hoax) that there are only a few extant photographs of Abe Zapruder. In one, he is shown filming through his camera. Problem is, his eye is not looking through the viewfinder at all. And, as you'd well know (having used one of those 414's, right?), it is not possible to see properly through that viewfinder with spectacles on.

• So? Perhaps he was in the habit of pointing it while filming and viewing over the top. We know he could use the camera and use it in focus, because the assassination series is prefaced by some other Zapruder footage, some frames of which I’ve seen, and they in focus, and they’re not fouled up. So Zapruder could use the camera effectively. Unless you’re claiming the rest of what’s on the Zapruder film is not his family, and is faked also?

You say that Zapruder didn't claim that the extant film disagrees with what he saw? Have you actually read his WC deposition? He barely recognised "his" film. It's not appropriate to cut and paste his testimony here -- you can find it for yourself on the internet.

• Sure. It’s here and everybody should read it. [3]. Zapruder was confused on two points—they showed him a pergola different from the one he’d been on. Also, he’d interpreted JFK’s left slump with arms up, as a clutch to his left chest. Otherwise he repeatedly identifieds the book of enlarged stills the commission gave him, as being from his film.

Mr. LIEBELER. And let's look at No. 213---as we go along here--then he does start moving sharply to the left.

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; when you take it frame by frame, it could have been just 2 or 3 seconds, but the impression was that he was leaning over and not just sitting there and looking over that and grabbing himself at the left side. Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; moving toward Mrs. Kennedy. Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's what impressed me. Now, what number are you on? Mr. LIEBELER. 313--you remember that one? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That was--that was the horrible one. Mr. LIEBELER. It appears to you then, that this book of pictures here as you look through it, are your pictures?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes.

Er, nice selective quoting. This is pure disinformation, Dr Harris. Good day to you and your gang.

Wait out a couple of months and you might be surprised.

(Harris continues) Your characterization of “barely recognized” is wrong, and is your interpretation. Mine is very different. In fact, since Zapruder flatly ends the interview by saying the photos are from his film, that more or less ends the discussion. You can keep arguing your point, but the longer you do, the worse you look.

Costella: He essentially states that the frames they showed him could not have been from the film he took.

• Wrong. He says he does recognize stills at the beginning of this testamony when confronted with disorienting blown up black and white stills from his own moving color footage, and not showing the same pergola, but a similar one. He says something to that effect when shown pictures early of something he thinks is another structure (the other pergola), but after being corrected as to location, and after getting oriented to the stills by seeing the car and so on, he withdraws the objection. Read it. At the end, he says it’s his film of the assassination.

The key point is NOT that Zapruder did not take a film. He may well have. The key point is that the film now produced as the "Zapruder" film is not authentic, in my opinion and the opinion of many.

• But not Zapruder. Alas for you. Go back and read the testimony again and again until you get it. It's his conclusion at the end, and as regards the important frames, that counts.

We have published the evidence supporting this claim. Others disagree. As far as I know, no published book has addressed the arguments in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (and it's been out for three years now).

• Er, so what? You claim the duck-and-hunch response of the four forward people in the limo after JFK’s final head shot was faster than humanly possible. But the duck and hunch is one of the fastest human reflexes, as you can find out at the office by making a BANG and squirting somebody on the back of the neck with a spray of warm water. Which is what happened to everybody forward of JFK. *I* can duck much faster than the people in the Z film do, so if THEY do it faster than humanly possible, it makes ME Superman. But since I’m not Superman, should I try to get this fact published? Who would publish it? It’s not exactly newsworthy. Boring and expected facts rarely are.

I don't see a duck and hunch reflex at all. I see the occupants all simultaneously lurch forward then thrown backward just as they would if the driver slammed on the brakes then hit the accelerator.

Mr. Harris, you are very good at spin, but insulting to the intelligence of us other people who also read the discussions and have viewed the Z film in detail. You are making a great show here of bashing Dr. Costella who openly came out to defend himself while you hide in obscure anonymity. That alone speaks volumes of a man and his motives. You claim to be a physician, yet your own statements in these discussions show obvious ignorance to medical evidence that has been called into question and even goes against statements made by JFK's attending physicians in Dallas. Did you personally examine the body? The WC report creates more questions than answers and ultimately ruined the career of Cheif Justice Warren. If that isn't damning enough by itself... Go back to your fantasy world and let the experts and evidence tell the truth, even if it doesn't fit within the constraints of what you personally believe to be true.208.254.130.235 (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now ... I thought we were going to discuss the question of my credentials, or why my website introduction is so much more simplified than the published version? I'm sure the wiki people don't want a huge discussion.

• The Wikipedia people want as much discussion as it takes to get at the kernal of the arguments on both sides. Which we’re doing here. So far, you’re losing. You don’t come off well as a careful researcher in Thompson’s view. How about that rain sensor you think is a goverenment instrument to monitor you? You say Zapruder barely recognizes his own film. Ultimately that’s simply wrong, if you consider the testimony as a whole. Zapruder places himself and Sitzman at the Willis #5 position (he's shown THAT photo, as the Bronson one doesn't turn up till after his death). Zapruder identifies the frame 313 head shot frame as being authentic. He admits that his initial perception of JFK clutching is left chest is due to JFK leaning strongly to the left with both his arms up, so that it looks like he's doing the official "You got me, kid!" mime, which is what Zapruder for the moment thinks he's seeing (and can't believe a president would be so unprofessional). He finally flatly identifies the fames as being from his own film. There you are.SBHarris 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We should try to avoid reversions and purges

There is little contentious about the Zapruder film other than its authenticity. On this, there are two main POVs:

1. the completely authentic camera-original is in the National Archives (other than the frames damaged by Life, obviously); or
2. all available versions of it are derived from the same inauthentic source.

Twocents' continual purge of the latter destroys NPOV.

It also confounds matters to link the authenticity of the Zapruder film to conspiracy theories to kill JFK. Although Fetzer and co. claim that the former implies the latter, they are really two separate issues. Altering or fabricating the Zapruder film would be a cover-up of something—but that something could, for example, be Secret Service ineptitude, not necessarily evidence of more than one shooter.

By all means, we need to continue to make sure the balance is right and the presentation as neutral as possible. We are approaching that with incremental edits and rearrangements. I suggest we continue with evolution rather than revolution.

AbrahamZapruder 11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is; does a minority view that the Zapruder film has been altered deserve any mention, in the article. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I tagged the 'Authenticity' section with a 'Missing Info' tag. Anybody who reads the article will be made aware that there is a debate. We can discuss the inclusion of fraud claims here. But the burden of proving the significance of this minority view of a fake film is on those who want to include it. Mytwocents 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is losing stability. Mytwocents' essential purging of the question of authenticity, together with valuable references supporting the film (such as Trask and Wrone), leaves it lopsided, in my opinion.

However, I am willing to follow the standard advice and let Mytwocents' revision stand for a period of time so that others can come in and comment. It's a quiet time of the year, and we should allow other editors to come out of hibernation.

AbrahamZapruder 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

it's time to put up the alternate points of view. There are questions of authenticity that may well stand up to closer scrutiny. A few self appointed "Keepers of the Truth" have had their heyday, but that doesn't make their views, or this article, absolutely correct. Bring the questions back. It is not a minority of "Crazy Conspiracy Theorists" but people generally interested in the whole truth who demand nothing less than to see the whole argument and be given the opportunity to decide for themselves. Though some editors feel it is their place to decide what is truth and fiction in a serious, world altering debate.208.254.130.235 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-published websites should not be references, period

SBHarris makes a good point. None of these websites (propounding a view) should be references. At best, they are external links. (The websites providing merely reference data or images are fine.)

It is misleading to say that there have been no published criticism of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. This was simply the third of three books by Fetzer and cohort, based in turn on work published by Twyman. It was based on those earlier claims that Zavada was commissioned to perform his study, and Wrone also addresses these claims. Regardless of whether or not Costella disowns the work published before his appearance, the entire publication record is relevant. One cannot expect the National Archives to commission Rollie Zavada to perform another study every time another new book comes out.

It is undisputed that Zapruder filmed the motorcade. His testimony only needs to be mentioned with regard to the authenticity claim. AbrahamZapruder 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a true statement. Zapruder did film the motorcade. His testimony that he filmed it is also accurate. Has the film been altered? That is the question. Is the film authentic? Does it portray the truth or just enough of it that even witnesses second guess themselves and concede that what they see must be the truth because it is a film of a memorable event seen from different angles and perspectives. Two films of the exact same event can completely alter your perception of the event just by changing your perspective. Considering that Zapruder saw everything through the viewfinder means he did not have the luxury of seeing the big picture and playing the recordeed events back to him could easily alter his perception of events. He made the recording, "So it must be true" doesn't stand to serious review.208.254.130.235 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Use in JFK Film

This section talks about what Gov. Connally, Mrs. Kennedy, and Mrs. Connally said as the assassination was taking place. Gov. Connally is attributed with saying, "My God, they're going to kill us all." This statement could just be an exclaimation that someone who had been shot might say, but it could also indicate that Connally was aware of a potential attack on JFK, and was exclaiming that the conspirators were going to kill not just the president, but everyone in the limousine. My sentence to that effect was removed and I only half disagree because that section is already too wordy in proportion to other more important topics, but if the page is reorganized, then the sentence should be added back.

Considering Connally owed alot to LBJ before and after the assassination. (He even switched sides to work for Nixon) It is plainly clear that he was aware of the plot. Most people, when they get shot, don't exclaim, "My God, they're going to kill us all!" Connally referred to "THEY" plural, not he or him, singular, so he either knew of the plot before hand; or, as a front line witness, had bullets passing him from different directions and therefore deduced that there was more than one shooter. The fact that Connally made the statement and its quote should be included. Another interesting statement was made by Jackie when it was noticed that she still wore the same bloody clothes in Washington D.C., "Let them see what they've done." She obviously knew it was a "THEY" and that "THEY" could still see her in her bloody clothing.Special:Contributions/208.254.130.235|208.254.130.235]] (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan Rather

Why is the content on Dan Rather in the authenticity section? I could see it being there if it made the point that Rather asserted the film he saw was the same as the one leter released. However, the point being made seems to be that people relied on Rather's interpretation when the film was not available to them - and that Rather's omission of mention of significant motion in 2 directions has been interpreted as a distortion of information coming from investigations. As it stands, the paragraph is misplaced --JimWae 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. — Walloon 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the paragraph here - sources are blank & relevance not established --JimWae 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

CBS News Southern bureau chief Dan Rather was one of the few reporters to see the Zapruder film on Monday afternoon, November 25, 1963. In his narration of the film as part of CBS nationwide television coverage that day, Rather said the President's head "went forward with considerable violence". This narration helped to convince the public that the fatal shot came from Oswald's position in the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. The Zapruder film was later shown on television in 1975. Many viewers saw the footage as depicting the President's head moving forward, and then backward. In response, Rather apologized, stating that he made "an honest error".

Why is a citation needed for "Many viewers saw the footage as depicting the President's head moving forward, and then backward." That is plainly obvious to anyone viewing the filmand needs no reference.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

More conspiracy theories

Please add material about conspiracy theories (directly related to the film, not JFK's head motion, Rather's screwups, or whatever), in the proper section. Do not use the word "claim" as it is a loaded one. Zapruder said, stated that he made the film, on both the news network that night, and to the Warren Commission (where he testified under oath). And so did Sitzman (testify under oath to the Warren Commission). The Moorman photo SHOWS Zapruder and Sitzman in the act of filming, and so do several other photographic records. So skepticism on this point is hardly appropriate unless you have really heavy evidence, and again it must be added slowly, so we can review it.

You editors who are signing in for the first time, from anon IP's, do try to convince us that you're not meatpuppets of recently-banned single-issue JFK conspiracy-floggers, like RPJ. Because that's what you look like. Discuss extensive edits on this TALK page first. Add them one at a time, so we don't have to revert in order to fix outragrous deletions, such as the recent deletion of the only copy of the Z film that runs easily in a loop, right off the weblink (which I've now restored). What's your problem with that, anyway? In short, if you want to add conspiracy stuff to this article, that's fine, but don't do it like an anonymous crank. Thanks. SBHarris 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I just ran a currycomb through this article and tried to get rid of the weasel words and statements that claim that there is doubt about the authenticity of the Z-Film. These statements have been salted into the article over time and strike me as POV pushing. Is the Z film a hoax? If it is, there should be evidence that it is an airbrushed fake. But there is none that I can see. I think the web pages that support a conspiracy theory on the Z-Film fall under the grouping of "crackpot" and don't come up to the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Exceptional claims require exceptional sources Mytwocents 04:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since "Ther is none that you can see" there must not be any. If anyone is pushing POV or OR it is you. Of course, everyone who thinks there is retouching is a "crackpot". Can you think of any more bait? There is plenty of evidence of retouching and manipulation of the film ie: the 7' tall running lady behind Muchmore which can easily be measured against the 4' yellow stripes on the curb. The missing frames and even reversed frames. I guess cameras accidently reverse frames too? There are too many questions to be answered before the Zapruder film will be viewed by all as definitive.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

secret service agent

you can see after the president has been shot the secret service agent, as he is climbing on to the back of the car, that his legs and feet dont appear to move quite right with the rest of the scene - no dragging feet or running really fast to keep up with an accelerating car. at least thats what it seems like to me..and im no expert like every one else on this page acts... the fact still remains that there are so many "oddities" through the whole film. how can there be so many little things? why do we not ever see weird "phenomena" like this in any other video? maybe because no other video has been studied like this one has or, and this is what it really comes down to, maybe you nay sayers are wrong! maybe it is a cover-up..i see fetzer and his collegues making very relevant points and i also see who want to jump at them, all gnashing teeth and screaming heresy like its the salem witch trials all over again..they are not the enemy, you know, they, like us, are only trying to figure out what the hell happened. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we know that Secret Service Agent Clint Hill did in fact run to the limousine and jump onto it while it was moving, what is your point? The same action can be seen from different angles in the Nix and Muchmore films. — Walloon (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is, The scene moves faster than his legs or feet. He is obviously not being dragged by the limo, which suggests the speed of the limo as relative to the background does not match the speed at which Mr. Hill runs to get on the Limo. Either Dealy plaza is a fantastic and un-studied phenomena of a physics warp as evidenced by so many observed anomalies within the Zapruder film, or the film has been altered. 1)non-moving bystanders on the curb, 2)completely focused Stemmons highway sign that dances when corrected for the camera, 3)the umbrella man, 4)The 7' tall running lady, 5)the magic bullet, 6)the simultaneous, ultrafast reflexes of all occupants, 7)the pickup truck, 8)the missing mini, 9)witness positions, 10)the fantastic speed which the blood-spray cloud disappears, 11)Clint Hill's fantastic feat of superhuman running with slow feet or leg revolutions faster than 1/18 sec., 12) motorcycle police to the rear left of the vehicle getting sprayed by blood that should be traveling forward...need I go on? Isn't it odd that all this strangeness happened at 1230, 22 November 1963 at one specific spot on planet earth and was captured on film no less? Figure the odds.208.254.130.235 (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Authenticity

I'm really surprised this article mentions almost nothing about all the problems with the film. The following link contains a lot of information, and I think some of the information, the link, and possibly some of the theories be added to the main article: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/index.html

I know wikipedia has to have a NPOV, and all possiblities should be covered, but the evidence there is pretty good... 69.182.118.103 09:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Pretty good"? I just had a look at that page it looks like something written by a school kid. Sample - "Film experts believe that a real film of the assassination was quickly altered on the evening of the assassination, using machines that could create Hollywood-style special effects (like Mary Poppins, created in 1964)." Uh huh. And there's more. "These have been analyzed scientifically, and shown to be twice as fast as humanly possible, even for an athlete trying to do it as quickly as possible! You might not think that doing something twice as fast as an athlete is all that big a deal. But imagine running a mile in two minutes, or 100 meters in five seconds, or jumping twice as far, or twice as high, as everyone else in the long jump or high jump at the Olympics!" Yep, why bother with citing sources other than the vague word "scientifically", when you can just throw in a few more exclamation marks!

143.252.80.100 18:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the first guy has a point, poor formatting notwithstanding, the page could be used as a source. 69.182.78.152 (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles Bronson?

From the "Authenticity" section:

"Three other films of part of the assassination (the Orville Nix, Marie Muchmore and Charles Bronson films), together with numerous still photographs, are consistent with the Zapruder film, suggesting that they are all authentic."

I'm not well-versed enough in this subject, perhaps, but I figured I would ask if that's vandalism. NeutronTaste (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way would it be vandalism? Are you thinking that the Charles Bronson mentioned is the late film actor? He is not. Charles Leslie Bronson (1918–1995) was a resident of Dallas who filmed with an 8 mm camera the presidential motorcade as it went through Dealey Plaza. More here. — Walloon (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no, I wasn't thinking that they were the same...I thought perhaps someone had switched out another name for the name of the actor. I was unaware that there was film of the assassination by someone of the same name. It just stuck out to me, so I figured I would ask...NeutronTaste (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-"Hoax" argument links without explanation of "Hoax" arguement

I have removed two links from the external links section:

• Assassinated Science. Online website critical of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.
• Roland Zavada's comments. Answers by Zavada to questions posed about the final chapter of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.

There is no discussion of the allegations of alteration or hoax in the article. If those allegations are not notable enough to include in the article, counter arguments against such allegations aren't notable enough to include in the article either. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alteration of the film

This topic is important to the film's authenticity. Everyone agrees that in at least one place the film is spliced (as the limo passes behind the freeway sign), but no one has forwarded a theory on what information could possibly be contained on one or two 1/18th second frames that would need to be covered up. For this reason, the splice walks free. However the quick flash of an unexplained bullet hitting concrete or steel would void the single bullet and lone gunman theories in a single frame of film, yet the splice has never been a source of controversy.

There are few reasons to alter the film, but one very good reason would be to edit out the frames that would show that the limo came to a stop or near stop as some witnesses stated.207.49.66.19 (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You can see an undamaged copy of the Z-film here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq1PbgeBoQ4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.106.83 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Silouette in Film

A silouette that appears to be a person with a rifle can be seen from frames 420 to 485 of the Zapruder film. The silouette moves similarly to the way the human body moves; at one point it appears to hunch its shoulders. The silouette is in a portion of the frame the does not move with the background. This suggests that it is a reflection. Possibly from light entering through the eye piece and onto the film. This happens on Aaton 16mm cameras if you leave the eye peice oncovered (i.e. take your eye away from it). I don't know whether anyone has looked into this before, but I think it should be concidered for entry into the wiki article on JFK.

Every frame of the film can be found here - http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe485.html. Ethoen 00:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I get tired of you crazies always trying to make something out of nothing. You always claims to see some guy with a rifle of something. If he got shot from the front, I see no ballistic evidence. There is ballistic evidence that shots came from the rear. What evidence? Connelly NOT getting shot from the front. Also, the limo was struck in the interior of the vehicle showing bullets coming from the rear and not the front. If shots came from the front , Jackie may have been hit instead of Connelly.--24.2.247.54 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, two bullets, both from behind, both accounted for. One goes through JFK's throat and Connally's chest, winds up in his thigh, falls out on stretcher, is CE399, matched perfectly to Oswald's rifle in the TSBD. The other at the time of the headshot, if from the TSBD would have passed into JFK's cowlick (right where the bevelled skull section puts it, coming from behind, and out the side of JFK's head above the ear. Leaving a trail of small lead bits all the way through JFK's brain. Then the two main fragments of this (nose and tail) pass in front of Connally's face by a few inches (by that time he's partly fallen over into his wife's lap), and wind up in the front seat, exactly where you'd expect them to land from THAT trajectory. They neutron-activation match with the batch of Western lead 6.5 mm ammo used in the Carcano (and from the loaded round remaining IN the Carcano, three empties being found with it also). A couple of bits from this second broken up bullet also hit the inside of the front car window, without breaking it. And that's it. If another bullet hit JFK from the front, it disappeared completely. And had nowhere to go free, from any angle in front of the car which would have reached JFK unimpeded. The first bullet fired? Missed completely at frame 160. Glanced off the pavement, went on to hit a curb and a bystander near the triple underpass. Also the right angle to have been fired from the TSBD, and early, at that. If somebody set all this up, they did it inhumanly well. And with the weird Oswald and his surplus cheap rifle right in the middle of it all, like a necessary but unnecessary part in a Rube Goldberg machine that absolutely must function flawlessly. SBHarris 18:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with all of us "crazies" is that we can see through the bs that people like you hand out. If Conally was hit by the same bullet that went through Kennedy's throat, then why doesn't it show in the film? He is clearly looking to his right after kennedy's arms are up and then he turns to the left prior to the fatal shot. Anyone who pays attention can clearly see that. Then the bullet just magically fell out? Not impossible, but highly improbable and in a pristine state at that. Why did it take until 1975 for the film to be shown to the public by Geraldo Rivera?208.254.130.235 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The silhouette that appears to be "man with gun" can actually be seen on frames Z001 through Z485 of the Zapruder film (except in the damaged frames Z155, Z156, Z208-Z211, Z341 and Z350 copied from the first generation backup copy). The frame area where the image appears has a continuation of background of the rest of the frame with a superimposed reflection (¿off the gear?) of the image that would appear foreground where the lower sprocket hole pierces the frame. The silhouette remains in the same position relative to the reflected area of the sprocket hole and does not actually move or change perspective from Z001 thru Z485 as the handheld camera is panned from the turn onto Elm St down to the underpass. It appears to be a reflection of something inside the camera and may be as prosaic as a piece of lint. Zapruder film: Rorschach test for the national nightmare on Elm St. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

J.G. Ballard

I was just struck particularly hard by this line in article. It seems more like something you'd see on a book jacket than something that belongs here on Wikipedia, and should definitely be sourced and rewritten. I'm not particularly familiar with the guy's works, though. Hopefully someone who is could help. Thanks! 98.254.42.152 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Author J.G. Ballard, in his typically obsessive writing style, focuses on Kennedy and the Zapruder film in a number of his works, such as The Atrocity Exhibition."

The "Other" Zapruder Film

does anyone Belive in this?

Several people, including the late Rich Dellarossa, have claimed to have seen an unaltered, unedited version of the Zapruder film that is different than the film commonly seen by the American public. It has been described as showing the limo making a wide turn from Houston St. onto Elm and a bullet hitting the Stemmons Freeway sign. More shockingly, the film reportedly shows the limo completely stopped when the fatal head shot is fired. As part of Jack White's research into the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film, author/researcher Jim Marrs interviewed William Reymond, a French free-lance writer who is one of the people who claim to have seen the "other" Zapruder film.

Here, Mr. Reymond describes what he saw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdyqDBTpeo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.24.58 (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright?

Has this film not been released into the public domain? It is such a historically important film that I'm surprised a copyright is on it. Can anyone verify Zapruder's stance on this aspect?--SeizureDog 09:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The film is still under copyright. As the article says, the Zapruder family donated to the copyright to the Sixth Floor Museum, in Dallas, and no longer retains any rights in the film. As the article says, at least one federal court has ruled that there are scholarly fair-use exceptions to the copyright. — Walloon (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this is just discussing (one aspect of) the subject of this article and not the article itself, but I've got to say: claiming/exerting copyright control over this film just seems kinda slimy. I checked out the Museum's website, and it appears that you can see a bunch of different home movies of the assassination... but only if you visit the Museum in person and pay the admission fee. - dcljr (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when has Wikipedia ever been neutral?

Neutral Point Of View is a joke. This site is an intelligence operation, it is ALWAYS taking the government/official story view of any issue. That's why this site always refers to anyone who disagrees with and presents evidence that differs from an official story as "conspiracy theorist" (I guess there's no "coincidence theorists" out there). And that's why this article calls Mark Lane a "conspiracy theorist" and Robert Groden an "assassination buff" instead of researchers. You clowns make me laugh. Time/Life "accidentally damaged" frames in the most important film ever made? Yeah, right. This site is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.200.157 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is your chance to contribute. Do you have any specific recommendations for additions or changes to this article? Location (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

And you need to actually read WP:NPOV. It doesn't actually mean WP's view should be neutral. It means it should be neutral with regard to reliable sources. That the WP view should mirror the major viewpoints you encounter in reliable sources. WP does not take a neutral view on the question of whether the Earth is flat or an oblate spheroid, or whether the Apollo moon landings are hoaxes. There are articles about the nuts in both cases, but they don't take up 50% of the room in the main articles about the shape of the Earth and the Apollo program. It is much the same with JFK.

Jim Marrs thinks space aliens live among us. Mark Lane thinks that somebody stole the heavy coffin containing JFK's body right out from under noses of his wife and this personal doctor, who was charged with maintaining chain of evidence.

There are people who think the Zapruder film is doctored, even though it shows just what Zapruder himself testified he saw through the viewfinder as he was making it. These are the same people who think the Oswald backyard photos were not really taken by Marina, even though she (to this day) says and has always said that she took them, and that Oswald had a rifle and that the photos she took shows the rifle he was holding that day. And so on.

You can't convince a paranoid nut about anything. So here at WP, we've quit trying. We think the twin towers fell down on 9/11 because crazy hijackers flew two commerical jet aircraft into them, too. And that HIV causes AIDS. And that vaccines don't cause autism. And so on. We're not neutral about things that only nutcases believe. SBHarris 22:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Various theories

unexpectedly capturing the President's assassination.

this statement in the first paragraph is unsubstantiated... There are a lot of connections between Zapruder and Bush sr... We know bush was closely associated with...

The following may be of interest to those who would seek a glimpse at the beginning, even though it tends to raise questions about the only piece of evidence that we know is real, intact, unaltered, and 100% without blemish. Qualities that are curiously absent from the character of the one who filmed it... Consider:

Abraham Zapruder-White Russian affiliation, 32nd degree Mason, active MEMBER of 2 CIA Proprietary Organizations: The Dallas Council On World Affairs and The Crusade For A Free Europe;

These two organizations were CIA (backed) Domestic Operations in Dallas whose membership included:

Abraham Zapruder, Clint Murchison (owner of the Dallas Cowboys at that time) , Mr. Byrd, (owner of the Texas School Book Depository), Sarah Hughes, who swore LBJ in as the 36th President while Air Force One was still on the ground in Dallas, George DeMohrenschildt, (CIA contract agent AND best friend of LHO), George Bush (also close friend of George DeMohrenschildt), Neil Mallon, (mentor that Bush named his son, Neil, after), H.L. Hunt, & Demitri Von Mohrenschildt (George D's brother).

In 1953 and 1954 a woman named, Jeanne LeGon worked SIDE by SIDE with Abraham Zapruder at a high end clothing design firm called, Nardis of Dallas. Jeanne LeGon designed the clothing and Abraham Zapruder cut the patterns and the material for her.

Incidentally, Abraham Zapruder's obituary mis-states the date/year that he departed Nardis of Dallas, incorrectly citing 1949. The correct year was 1959, [the same year that his "partner in design" Jeanne LeGon became known as, Jean LeGon DeMohrenschildt... She had married Lee Oswald's BEST FRIEND (to be), CIA Contract Agent, George DeMohrenschildt!]

Lyndon Baines Johnson's personal secretary, Marie Fehmer, who flew back to Washington on Air Force One with LBJ on 11-22-1963, just happens to be the daughter of Olga Fehmer, currently living in Tyler, Texas. Olga Fehmer ALSO worked at Nardis of Dallas with Abraham Zapruder and Jean LeGon DeMohrenshildt. http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol8/articles/zapruder.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorheadrush (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

MISPLACED MODIFIER?

QUOTE: "A specific mystery concerns what happened to one of the three shots that missed (and how Oswald came to miss at what was assumed to be close range). " As written, this sentence says that 3 shots missed. Don't you mean to say: "There were 3 shots. One of them missed. It is a mystery what happened to that one shot that missed." (EnochBethany (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Adding a large section of 'Zapruder film' to this page for addition/revision/POV/etc.

From John F. Kennedy Assassination. Much of this material is repeated in the article as it currently exists. Placed here to reduce the overall length of JFK Assassination.

President Kennedy's last seconds of life through Dealey Plaza were recorded on silent 8mm film before, during, and immediately following the assassination by amateur cameraman Abraham Zapruder, in what became known as the Zapruder film.

The film advanced through the camera at an average tested speed of 18.3 frames-per-second. The entire Dealey Plaza exposed film frames lasts 26.6 seconds, with the presidential limousine assassination sequence lasting 19.3 seconds.

Three copies of the film were made on 11-22-63 for investigative authorities. Within days "Life magazine" purchased the original film and all rights to the film for an initial payment of $25,000, which Abraham Zapruder donated to Dallas Policeman Jefferson Davis Tippit's widow and children. Thereafter five anual $25,000 payments were made to Zapruder by "Life."

After acquiring the film, "Life" made large photo prints of individual frames. Sometime in "Life's" possession several film frames were "accidentally damaged." (private copies were made for "Life" executives) Mostly, the film was kept locked away from public scrutiny -printing a few frames of it over the years- and was never publicly shown in motion by "Life" or any of its affiliates, agents, or customers.

In 1966 Dr. Josiah Thompson, while contract working for "Life," tried to negotiate with "Life" the rights to print important individual frames in a book he was working on, "Six Seconds in Dallas." "Life" refused to approve the use of any frames even after Thompson offered to give away all profits from the book sales. When Thompson's published book included very phot-like, detailed charcoal drawings of important individual frames, "Life" filed a lawsuit against Thompson and his publishing company.

Prior to the 1969 trial of New Orleans multi-millionaire, international businessman and C.I.A. Operations and Intelligence Divisions and Domestic Contact Agent, Clay Lavergne Shaw, a copy of the film was obtained by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for use during the trial. Copies of the film were "accidentally" allowed to be made, and were soon being further copied and shown throughout the United States and world.

In March of 1975, during the late-night tv show "Goodnight America" still-dedicated assassination researchers Robert Groden and Dick Gregory presented the first-ever, mass, public tv showing of the film in motion. The publics response to that showing led directly to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

In 1975 "Life" sold the film back to the Zapruder family for $1. The Zapruder family soon asked the U.S. government to store the film safely and help protect it from the sands of time. The U.S. government has stored the film among the National Archives historical holdings.

In 1998 the original filmstrip was purchased by the United States government under the doctrine of eminent domain, and Zapruder's heirs sued to increase the amount paid for the film to $16,000,000. The Zapruder family still retains all showing rights to the film. The Zapruder family at that time also donated one of the 11-22-63 copies and "Life" photo prints to the "Sixth Floor Museum" in Dallas. (this museum is, today, what use to be the Texas School Book depository building, and has been visited by over 4 million persons since 1989 by those wanting to inspect, learn, then decide for themselves about what transpired on 11-22-63)

Many witnesses reported hearing almost simultaneous shots from more than one direction, seeing evidence of something strike Elm Street near the limousine and other locations, and seeing smoke lingering briefly near the grassy knoll, which was in front and to the right of President Kennedy at the time of the assassination. Many feel the Zapruder film supports this theory, as the film clearly shows that when the president is first struck in his head, his head moved slightly forward 1" to 2", then, after a 0.11 second pause, the president's head, upper torso, and right arm all violently snap simultaneously upwards, then backwards (towards the depository) and leftwards (away from the grassy knoll).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skybunny (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 April 2004 (UTC)

Section Cleanup

Reworded the section "The study of the movie" for cleanup and clarity. Shortened a few of the sentences to improve readability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV problems with "Authenticity" section

The "Authenticity" section of this article does not do a good job of representing a neutral point of view. It heavily favors conspiracy theories over mainstream views, both it its content and in its choice of references. When conspiracy theories are at stake, a high volume of sources does not indicate reliability. Higher quality sources should be given more weight, and will probably be found not to support the slant currently taken in this section. GeoEvan (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Study of the Film

This section contained references to shots at z170 and z223 which are not visible. There is much controversy over when the first and second shots occurred. The section was very much portraying a particular POV as to the shot timing and this is not consistent with the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Similarly the references to the audio dictabelts is very much a POV and one which is not supported by the mainstream scientific analyses. The National Academy of Sciences debunked the audio dictabelts in 1982: SCIENCE, VOL. 218, 8 OCTOBER 1982. To include any reference to these "recordings" is highly questionable at any rate since this article is about the zfilm.AMSask (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Inadvertently???

I'm not so sure that the word "inadvertently" belongs there in the lede.  Zapruder witnessed the assassination through the viewfinder of his movie camera as it took place, and presumably would have known what he was filming.  That would mean that it was not filmed inadvertently, but rather intentionally.  I propose that the word "inadvertently" be removed from the lede paragraph.  I would appreciate input from other editors before changing anything.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the dictionary, inadvertent is "not intended or planned". I don't think that the use of the word in the lead section is outright wrong, as Zapruder set out to make a home movie of JFK's trip to Dallas, not to film his assassination. However, the word could be removed without a great loss of context.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the sentence with inadvertently included. Zapruder certainly did not set out to film an assassination, but he certainly did so while watching and capturing the action as the motorcade passed. The sentence with inadvertently has a certain emphasis or nuance that adds some factual weight that is lost if it it removed. I would not be heart-broken to see it changed, however. Factually, it would still relate proper meaning. Fylbecatulous talk 14:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I might suggest "unexpectedly". There are many ways to parse this. Zapruder did intend or plan to film the motorcade, but he did not expect there to be an assassination. I doubt he gave the possibility of an assassination any thought, but one could assume he intended to capture anything that might happen as the motorcade passed by. - Location (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: @Fylbecatulous: @Location:

I like "unexpectedly" better than "inadvertently." To me, when you say he captured it "inadvertently," it suggests he wasn't aware of what he was actually filming while he was filming it. Based on his WFAA-TV interview, it seems he did realize what was happening at some point before the fatal shot and deliberately continued filming. To say he "unexpectedly" filmed the assassination sounds better to me. He wasn't expecting there to be shots fired and the president killed while he was filming, but it happened. How does everyone else feel about this?
Richard27182 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "unexpectedly" works perfectly. It is true that he determined to continue filming in order to capture the events that unfolded; unexpected as they were. I agree with this change in the text of the lede. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 12:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

pinging:  @Ianmacm: @Fylbecatulous: @Location:

 I think Location's suggestion of substituting the word "unexpectedly" will prove to be the key to consensus in this informal discussion. I think I'll wait a few more days just to see if there are any more comments or suggestions, and then go ahead and make the change to the article. Thank you, Location.
Richard27182 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sloppy edit

I reverted this edit because it is sloppy; whoever did it removed part of the story/myth and left part of it still there (the part that starts with "After ending their telephone conversation Hewitt realized his mistake and .........").  If you feel there is legitimate reason to delete that part of the article, then fine, but please do a proper, complete deletion of the section sentence(s) in question.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The material was inaccurate, or at least disputed by Rather, so I attempted to fix it and add citations. I'm not sure that this particular anecdote deserves a place so early in the article. Other opinions on this would be helpful. - Location (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Zapruder film → Zapruder Film – after doing the bold thing and adding italics to the title (please reverse and discuss if opposed, and the italics can be part of this discussion), and checking around for usage, it seems the Zapruder Film is listed on IMBD, is one of the films preserved in the U.S. National Film Registry, and regularly capitalized in search engine results. So it seems to be at least something to discuss. Randy Kryn 21:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support as both nominator and after looking up the official listing of the National Film Registery (film inducted in 1994), listed capitalized, at least until someone talks some sense into me. Randy Kryn 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – since sources don't treat it as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  Are we still using ngrams as a source? They stopped in 2008, which is a lifetime or two ago in internet years. Might as well use the Encyclopédie Méthodique. The capitalization does seem to be becoming more prevalent, looking at search engine results, the National Film Registry, and places like IMBD. The Wikipedia film project should probably be has been alerted to this question, their input on the National Film Registry use may be relevant. Randy Kryn 13:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think ngrams are still useful, as we consider long-term significance, i.e. enduring notability and educational value in terms of names used over the long term. But what ngrams can't do is distinguish the context of use, so it's not appropriate for deciding whether a more formal title for the film is merited in certain contexts of writing about it. wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If one wanted to make the case that this has become a proper name since 2008, one could present evidence to that effect; seems unlikely. As for film registries, be careful of WP:SSF. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: The New York Times made it a proper name back on November 15, 1994, in the context of the National Registry. WP:SSF strikes me as a "TLDR" essay primarily written by a single author, which nutshells to "the community decides its own style." So, let's try to decide our style here. I suspect that in stories about use of the film as evidence in investigations of the assassination, the Times did not make it a proper name, especially back in the 1960s, though I haven't checked that myself. We have mixed usage; in the context of the National Registry, it is given a proper name, as the registry themselves have named it (or "film circles" or "historians" have named it). So I think we can keep it as just a lowercase "film" here, but give it a proper name only in specialized contexts such as the National Film Registry article, where of course the upper-case link will just redirect to the lowercase article. And make that our house style, just as it seems to be the Times' style. See the discussion I initiated below for more of my rationale. wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean the article that says "the Zapruder film of the John F. Kennedy assassination" and later lists it in title case as a title? OK, yes, they anoint it as a title. But it's still a generic, too, and most often treated as such. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose "Zapruder film" is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, which avoids capitalization if it is unnecessary. The film does not have an official title; it is an 8mm home movie shot by a private citizen, so the capitalization is unnecessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose it isn't a title. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• I was going to oppose too, but then I saw where it was listed in the National Film Registry, it is the only film there that is not capitalized and in italics as a proper film name. I'm still leaning oppose for this main article about it, but think maybe it should be capitalized and in italics in places like National Film Registry, where it is being defined and assigned a name as a significant film of historical importance. I don't see anything else exactly like this listed there, but the closest perhaps is Nicholas Brothers Family Home Movies, which isn't even referring to a single film, but a set of films. I see that "film title" is piped to Nicholas Brothers, as we don't have an article about their home movies, which only get a brief mention in their biography under "Other notable achievements". Either we should change that to a simple "Nicholas Brothers' family home movies", or we should cap + italic the Zapruder Film when used in that context. wbm1058 (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also Kodachrome Color Motion-Picture Test doesn't sound like a real title, so perhaps it should be lower-cased. These three at least should be treated uniformly, so that "Zapruder" doesn't stand out as the only one without a proper title. wbm1058 (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Many short home films and short subjects are listed as films in the National Registry. A few more include The Augustas, Disneyland Dream, and Jam Session. The cap and italicize seems the best option to me, in terms of uniformity. The Zapruder Film, capped in the National Registry official list, gives an indication of common name. Randy Kryn 13:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

New York Times supports the case for showing it as a formal film title in that context. Disneyland Dream seems to me to clearly be a title, otherwise if the film wasn't named we would likely default to something like "Robbins family's free trip to the newly opened Disneyland". – wbm1058 (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In this sense, "Zapruder film" or "Film" does seem to be the de facto common name or de facto title of the movie. A more generic non-name would be "Zapruder's film of the President Kennedy assassination". wbm1058 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Relevant to this, see Talk:National Film Registry § Italics and this edit (summary: "finish italics, clean up, rm uneeded brackets, format others as notes, rm italics from entires that don't need them as they have no official title"). wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Should it be The Dickson Experimental Sound Film, Dickson Experimental Sound Film (WP:THE), or Dickson experimental sound film? I think italics and title case go hand-in-hand, I don't see a rationale for doing one without the other. The removal of italics by the above linked edit did not stick. wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at this! "Commonly known in film circles as 'Fred Ott's Sneeze,' this historic registration for 'Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze, January 7, 1894,' marks the humble beginning of the film industry in America."

We don't have it at the official title as filed with the copyright office – Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze (subtitle "January 7, 1894"), but rather at the common title assigned by "film circles": Fred Ott's Sneeze. This certainly sets a precedent for Zapruder Film as the common title assigned by historians. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Another home film which the U.S. National Film Registry capitalizes: Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse, selected into the registry in 1998. Wikipeda doesn't have a page on it, but our list in National Film Registry follows the capitalization and name of that home movie. IMBD also capitalizes it, as do most entrants on search engines. Randy Kryn 18:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC) signed back, and to the left

• Comment What other websites do is not really relevant as MOS:CAPS applies here. This is clearly against unnecessary use of capital letters. Abraham Zapruder shot an 8mm home movie film and it has no official title.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Zapruder is the personal proper name of the individual who photographed the event in film. His name is capitalised. The film footage he produced is still just film and was never given an official title. Hence, it is the Zapruder film; his name is caps and lower case for his footage (the film). Fylbecatulous talk 14:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chain Of Custody, Tampered With, Triangulation Anomalies

Where is it? The sketchy chain of custody should be listed (or mentioned at least) to support the premise of tampering. Also, this is insufficient: "suggesting that they are fraudulent; some researchers of the assassination have claimed that the extant Zapruder film is not authentic. These claims[which?] have been countered." And countered how? Tampered with is more accurate than fraudulent and/or not authentic. It's also worth mentioning that the sprocket bleed exposure to the left is greater than can be achieved with that camera and film = faked. There are other 16mm / 8mm issues too. And lastly, it should be noted that not only do eye witness statements not all match the Z film, but obsessive people have demonstrably calculated and triangulated strange proportions and anomalies with people, landmarks, the field, and other photos. JasonCarswell (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zapruder film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061008133947/http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapruder_Press_Conference.htm to http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapruder_Press_Conference.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)