Talk:Zapruder film/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Head-Snapping Motion

"Note that subsequent experiments have shown that backward motion of the head, while counter-intuitive, is the actual expected motion when a head is shot through and through from the rear towards the front."

There should be a source here. According to some initial sites I've been looking at, most medical experts seem to say that the motion of Kennedy would not be telling of the trajectory of the bullet at all. I'm going to take it out (for now).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trehoffmn (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 March 2006

I believe the correct term for it is "contre-coup" force. The energy inside the skull blows the head in a direction opposite the exit wound, sort of a like a jet airplane moves opposite the direction that the jet engine forces the air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.0.91 (talk • contribs) 7:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is worth noting that further scrutiny of the fatal shot in the Zapruder film indicates not a single "backwards and to the left" motion, as the film JFK so deliberately suggests, but rather an initial forward motion and then the familiar backwards motion. No person should need to be reminded that Kennedy had suffered a bullet wound prior to being fatally shot, and that his gunshot wound-through his throat-had caused Kennedy to lean forward. If a bullet were to strike Kennedy from the rear, this would likely throw his head violently forward, but because his chin was so close to his chest, the initial movement would appear almost unnoticeable, while the slower and more emphasized backward motion of his head bouncing off of his chest would be much easier to observe. In any observation, it is quite easy to notice the cloud of blood and brain tissue exploding from Kennedy's skull; in what direction does this cloud move? to the front end of the limousine, as any ballistics specialist would explain is the most definitive proof that the bullet's origin was from Kennedy's rear. I have always believed in a conspiracy surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, but all of this speculation that the fatal gunshot came from anywhere other than the Book Depository and from Oswald's gun, is completely unfounded and absurd. I believe Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy; it is his motive and the events leading up to his murder of the President that hold the tinge of conspiracy. I have included a website which shows a frame by frame analysis of the final, and fatal, gunshot wound; you will see for yourself every detail which I have described above in this picture. Zapruder Film of the Kennedy Assassination— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.247.1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 November 2008(UTC)

All of this analysis of head motion in the film is moot if the extant copies of the Zapruder film have been altered, as Doug Horne's 9 July 2011 interview of Dino Brugioni indicates. You can view the Brugioni interview at YouTube's entry, "JFK Assassination: The Zapruder Film Mystery". Dino Brugioni was the duty officer at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) on the weekend of 23-25 November 1963, and is believed to have seen the original Zapruder film before it was altered. See the link to the Brugioni interview posted in the Talk section, "Altered". Gwlucca49 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The attention on JFK's head motion seen in frames of a possibly altered film ignores an elephant in the room. After the shot, Jackie Kennedy leans out over the back of the limousine to collect some of his brain or skull tissue. A Dallas motorcycle officer behind the limo is also splattered with brain tissue. These two facts indicate at least one shot hitting JFK's head came from the front, not the back. As corroborating evidence of a cover-up, the limo was immediately sponged off as it sat parked outside of Parkland Hospital in Dallas, which is a clearly destruction of evidence at a crime scene. Gwlucca49 (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Altered

hm. There're dissenters (WC nonbelievers) adamant the film has not been altered[1] but it seems they're referring to the Nat'l Archives copy. I've read in other JFKA material the archives (illegally) prohibit copying... so perhaps both are right; the published versions are diddled and reframed but the archived (unpublishable?) one is not. Durn but JFKA study gets one into a ball fast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.168.75 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 26 September 2003(UTC)

I made the following addition to the article today: Was the Zapruder Film altered by the CIA in the days after the JFK assassination to hide evidence of a conspiracy? Former CIA photo interpreter Dino Brugioni thinks it was. In a video-taped interview conducted by Doug Horne, Brugioni spoke about his examination of the film at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center on the Saturday evening after the assassination. Brugioni was not aware of a second examination of the film at NPIC the following evening by a completely different team and believes the Zapruder Film in the archives today is not the film he saw the day after the assassination. gwlucca 75.140.48.109 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I just reverted the YouTube reference in Special:Diff/741364197 without watching the video itself. (no player) If someone can verify the video is authentic, I am not opposed to it being used in the article with appropriate prose. This read more like an advertisement. —PC-XT+ 01:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Please give more info about the video, if possible, and merge the first two sentences to get rid of the question. The rest of the paragraph sounds better without it. —PC-XT+ 01:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC) 01:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for your note, PC-XT. I agree that the prose I inserted needs improvement. An easy solution would be to just delete the first line (the question) and the second line (the answer to that question) altogether, and simply lead with "In a video-taped interview conducted by Doug Horne..." Since making that entry I have come across a possibly superior reference to a text article that precludes the need of a video player: . This article makes extensive reference not only to the Doug Horne interview of Dino Brugioni on 9 July 2011 that appears in two separate YouTube entries, but also compares information given by Brugioni to Doug Horne's 14 July 1997 interviews of Homer A. McMahon (the former Head of the NPIC Color Lab), and Morgan Bennett Hunter (his assistant at the time), which is not available on YouTube. According to Horne, as stated in his 19 May 2012 article, "those interview reports also available to the public in the JFK Records Collection at Archives II." The interviews of McMahon and Hunter are not, however, published on YouTube. Finally, I think it would be highly beneficial for a Wikipedia reader to view the YouTube video entry of the 9 July 2011 Doug Horne interview of Dino Brugioni. This one hour and 25 minute video, is edited to include substantiating material to accompany Brugioni's remarks. Since this is the first day I've tried to make contributions to a Wikipedia article, I would very much appreciate your assistance for including this "game-changing" information about the extant Zapruder film's chain of custody and authenticity. gwlucca 75.140.48.109 (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

LewRockwell.com is not a reliable source for an unbiased encyclopedia. By its own description it is largely the opinions of one person (Lew Rockwell) and those who agree him. He describes himself as an "anarcho-capitalists". Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. The website is fine if you're a conspiracy theorist looking for opinions, but not for unbiased facts. Just because it's on the internet does not make it true. Sundayclose (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Sundayclose. I had doubts about using LewRockwell.com as well. In this case the primary source of information is the recorded interview of Dino Brugioni, a former senior official at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). He was an imagery analyst and also served as NPIC's Chief of Information. I encourage you to view the "JFK Assassination - The Zapruder Film Mystery" video posted on YouTube and judge for yourself if Brugioni's recollections appear biased or lacks credibility. The Douglas Horne article posted on LewRockwell.com, "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film's Alteration", is also posted on The Education Forum, a forum for teachers, at , AssassinationOfJFK.net, manuscriptservice.com, insidethearrb.com, and jfkfacts.org. Of these, jfkfacts.org seems to me to be the most reputable and neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwlucca49 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of where his writings are posted, Horne has no more credibility than the thousands of other conspiracy theorists who have provided no substantial evidence that even remotely compares to the significant evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman with no organizational backing, and who acted only on the basis of his own deranged delusions. Some of these theorists have developed their theories for financial gain. Others have various other motivations, but none has provided any credible evidence that has withstood close scrutiny over many years. I don't know what motivates Horne, but like the thousands of others he pieces together bits of information from very limited sources (and one of them, Brugioni, is now dead so cannot be questioned further for clarification) and then jumps to unfounded conclusions. You can find discussion of this and other conspiracy theories presented quite adequately at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Otherwise Wikipedia is not the place for these wild theories. Sundayclose (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sundayclose, have you seen the interview of Dino Brugioni conducted by Douglas Horne 9 July 2011? I can understand your exasperation with the great majority of conspiracy theorists (e.g. the moon landings were faked; the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition, etc. etc.) and they weary me as well. But sometimes conspiracies occur, for example the First Triumvirate in which Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, and Marcus Licinius Crassus secretly plotted to share rule of the Roman Empire. I ask in good faith that you judge for yourself if Dino Brugioni provides credible evidence that the extant Zapruder film we know today appears to have been altered from the version he worked on at NPIC during the night of Saturday 23 Nov 1963 to Sunday morning 24 Nov 1963. The two most salient points are: (1) the version of film his team worked on was split, 8mm film, whereas the version of film a second NPIC team worked on 24-25 Nov 1963 was unsplit, 16mm wide (two tracks of 8mm each), and (2) there were several frames of the film he examined that vividly showed the spread of white brain and skull tissue, whereas the extant film shows the JFK head shot effects in only one frame (313) and is colored pinkish-red. The current section titled "Authenticity" of this Wikipedia article cites John Costella,[28] James H. Fetzer,[28] David Lifton,[28] David Mantik,[28] Jack White,[28] Noel Twyman,[29] and Harrison Livingstone [no ref] as believing the extant version of the "original" has been altered. Note that all but one of these citations refers to [28] Bugliosi 2007. It seems to me that Douglas Horne ought to be included as also believing that the extant film is an altered version from the original. Mention of Horne should include a reference to his 2011 interview of Dino Brugioni, since it provides the most recent evidence. Gwlucca49 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw the Brugioni interview before this discussion even started. Neither it nor Horne are any more convincing than most other conspiracy theories. Yes, over the entire course of the history of Western civilization, conspiracies have occurred. But there is no significant evidence for a JFK assassination conspiracy. I know these things are interesting to talk and speculate about, but Wikipedia articles are not the place to try to present such theories as having any credibility. A good rule of thumb: If the majority of reputable encyclopedias that have professional editors, such as Encyclopædia Britannica, give something significant coverage, it might belong in Wikipedia. Or if the consensus among reputable scholars (which does not include Horne by any stretch of the imagination) view it as credible, it might belong in Wikipedia. As I said earlier, the theory of alteration of the Zapruder film is already discussed at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, which includes a list of names associated with that claim. That's quite sufficient, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. This is not the first time such fringe theories have failed the credibility test on Wikipedia, so I would estimate the likelihood of getting this to stay in an article is close to zero. Otherwise it would have been added long ago because articles related to the JFK assassination are edited by a lot of people. Nothing personal, but if you, like many before you, want to keep wasting your time, that's your choice. But thanks for a civil discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you. I've entered a post to the Wikipedia article on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, as you recommended. It appears in the section 'The Zapruder film'. Thanks for your patience and advice. Gwlucca49 (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of Zapruder film

Hello.
I was thinking there should be a timeline of Zapruder film in the article a little similar to this one. We can create a timeline in an encyclopaedic style with wikipedia standards, citing multiple trustworthy sources for each event. What are your thoughts? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

For future reference

Another article on Holland's theory: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/28/truth-behind-jfks-assassination-285653.html. - Location (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

ARRB documentation of extant film not original

JFK Assassination Records Review Board documentation of extant film not original need to be added to this article --J. D. Redding 22:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• If you have sourced confirmation, add the reference. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I posted the fact that the extant film is not original, and provided the source as Doug Horn's book, Inside the AARB, Volume 4, where Doug explains how the original film was used to create a new film, which obscures the president's wound and removes frames. The change was reverted by with a comment that this is a big claim and requires a big source. I agree this is a big claim and I think a reasonable consideration of the source shows it is up to the claim. The source is Doug Horn, senior analyst on the Assassination Records Review Board, which was created by the federal government in response to Oliver Stone's film, JFK. The sequence of events that led to his finding that the Zapruder film in circulation since November 24, 1963 is an altered version of the original is complicated. That is why it requires half a volume from his five-volume book.

Doug Horn explains this sequence of events, including a lengthy excerpt of his interview with Dino Brugioni, in a video available at this link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QIuu6hsAc). Until his death in 2015, Dino was considered the world's foremost imagery intelligence analyst. Klein, Larry "Master of the Surveillance Image". PBS, November 2002. Retrieved 19 May 2007

In a video interview by Doug Horne, Dino Brugioni says that he and his team examined the 8mm Zapruder film of the John F. Kennedy assassination the evening of Saturday 23 November 1963 and into the morning of Sunday 24 November 1963, when he was the weekend duty officer at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center. The film was returned the two members of the Secret Service, at approximately 3 AM. Dino said he was not aware of a second examination of the film at NPIC the night of Sunday 24 November and the early morning of Monday 25 November, by a completely different team. That team was working with the new revised master.

Dino said the Zapruder Film in the National Archives today, and available to the public, has been altered from the version of the film he saw and worked with on November 23–24, 1963. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QIuu6hsAc "The Zapruder Film Mystery", Published on August 15, 2014 — Preceding [[[User:Danallenhtn|Danallenhtn]] (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC) comment added by Danallenhtn (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It's common practice for JFK conspiracy theorists to claim that the Zapruder film has been altered in some way. The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza says this on its FAQ page: "HAS THE ZAPRUDER FILM BEEN ALTERED TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY? No. Most alteration theories originate with people who have little, or no, technical experience with motion picture special effects and who do not realize there are obvious, telltale signs of such work. Despite his belief in a conspiracy, filmmaker Oliver Stone (JFK, 1991) was among a number of film experts who dismissed the idea of Zapruder film alternation. Stone – like other Hollywood producers/directors – has a long professional history with multiple film types and, with careful study, can recognize evidence of special effects and forgery on film. He concluded in 1992 that the Zapruder film was authentic. ARE SOME OF THE ZAPRUDER FRAMES “MISSING”? No. Six frames, from two different parts of the original film, were accidentally damaged by LIFE magazine personnel while they were preparing pictures for publication. Fortunately, three duplicate copies were made of the original film before the damage occurred. Two of those films are stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and the third is in the Museum’s Zapruder Collection. The copy now in the Museum’s collection was apparently also damaged when it was at LIFE and it, too, may be lacking one or two of the “missing” frames. All frames of the film are accounted for at the National Archives." Contradicting this runs into WP:REDFLAG problems, namely "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". It simply isn't practical for Wikipedia to say that the Zapruder film has been altered unless this is the consensus of reliable sources. What the article could do is to point out that some people have claimed that the film has been altered, but this has been denied.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the WP:REDFLAG to my attention. I understand and it makes sense. Would this work? "The source of the Zapruder film is challenged by Doug Horn, Senior Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board. Doug discovered that the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) worked on two different versions of the Zapruder film on Saturday and Sunday nights immediately following the murder, which occurred Friday. November 22,1963. This investigation led Dino Brugioni, a senior official at NPIC, considered the world's foremost world's foremost imagery intelligence analyst until his death in 2015, to say the Zapruder Film in the National Archives today, and available to the public, is an altered version of the film he saw and worked with on November 23–24, the earlier of the two versions handled by the NPIC." Klein, Larry "Master of the Surveillance Image". PBS, November 2002. Retrieved 19 May 2007.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QIuu6hsAc "The Zapruder, Film Mystery", Published on August 15, 2014, P., Horne, Douglas (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board : the U.S. government's final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK. [Falls Church, VA.] ISBN 9780984314409. OCLC 596184454.Danallenhtn (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If Dino Brugioni's claim is mentioned, it also has to be mentioned that the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza denies that the version of the film available to the public has been altered in any way. This claim has been made many times but it remains controversial. As the museum points out, the problem would be that film directors and special effects experts would probably be able to spot this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the requirement for providing sources waived by statements coming from the Sixth Floor Museum? I cannot find a source for their FAQ answer regarding whether the film has been altered. I cannot find a source for Oliver Stone's conclusion made in 1992, specifically whether he evaluated it for alteration of any of the images in the frames or whether he looked for evidence of missing frames. Danallenhtn (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the claim that the Zapruder film has been altered is not generally accepted as a fact. It is a claim that has been made about the film, and it would be of huge importance if true. The Sixth Floor Museum presumably knows what it is talking about with the film, and has tried to put the claim into perspective.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

What principle of Wikipedia makes the Sixth Floor Museum's perspective more authoritative than the documentation of the Assassination Records Review Board? What principle of Wikipedia supports presumption of correctness by the Sixth Floor Museum? Danallenhtn (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE says "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." It would be wrong to give the impression that the statement that the film has been altered is an unchallengeable historical fact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In considering all the sources on how the Zapruder came to be in its current state, the section entitled Creation in this article does not come anywhere near fair representation of what the sources say. For instance, there is no source that says the NPIC did not work on two versions of the film on the weekend immediately after the assassination. A variety of sources support the two-version scenario. A fair representation of the creation of the Zapruder film would read something like this:

CREATION
The Zapruder film was created by Abraham Zapruder, in Dealey Plaza while President Kennedy was murdered by a disputed number of gunshots fired by a disputed number of people from a disputed number of locations within firing range of Dealey Plaza. There is no dispute that the film originated this way, but there is significant dispute over chain of custody and processing of the film, making some crucial details of the film unverified.

I don't think there is any question that a fair representation of all the best sources supports that.
Here is what I doubt:

1. I doubt a neutral observer would disagree.
2. I doubt neutrality of point of view is possible on this topic.

Danallenhtn (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The altered film theory is based on the assumption that, using early 1960s technology, the film was altered at around 24 hours' notice, and over 50 years later, top film experts were unable to detect this had happened. The Sixth Floor Museum points out that this is very unlikely. It is not an accepted fact that the film has been altered, and it would run into problems with WP:WIKIVOICE to state or imply this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Dead link in footnote number 9

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.38.183 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 15 January 2009(UTC)