Zapruder Film, Conspiracy Theories

Factual Questions
1

Last year, I was quite surprised when my father told me that the film of President Kennedy getting shot was not shown on television on a regular basis until about fifteen years after his assasination. I had simply taken it for granted that the Zapruder Film was something everyone had become intimately familiar with from November 22, 1963 on, and that it explained in part the mystique lent to Kennedy’s assasination, and to his Presidency in general.

Was he right about this? If so, what do folks think may have driven the people at the television stations to start showing the film every year around the anniversary of the assasination?

Was “evidence” of a conspiracy found immediately after the assasination, or did it only come up later? Was the incessant broadcast of the film part of the reason some people started to question the government’s official explanation?

2

If this article is accurate, probably so. I remember seeing it from the mid-70s, but it’s quite possible that before that the public was mainly familiar with the stills taken from it.
http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr998-zfilm.html

I think “Rush to Judgment” was the first major conspiracy book, which was not long after the Warren Comission report.

3

Exactly how long is the Zapruder film?

4

Zapruder sold the film rights to LIFE Magazine w/i days. LIFE felt they film was too graphic to saw at any price (or they were protecting thier rights or they were part of a conspiracy :wink: ). Getting it supeona in '69, Jim Garrison in the Clay Shaw trial shows the film several times – it is illegally copied and bootlegs appear a time or two on local TV in '69. Same year 100’s of copies are legally distributed for “educational purposes” to Colleges and Universities.

Nov. 22, 1976 is the first time AFAIK it is “legally” shown on TV – a local Fort Worth Station.

good site on this history

http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html

5

A much argued about question. The most definite answer would be that Zapruder took two shots of the motorcade, the first occupying 132 frames and the second, more famous, taking up 354. (Needless to say, some of the more, umm, colourful speculation surrounding the film has The Conspiracy cleverly removing key frames from the record.) Translating this into time elapsed requires some estimate of what fps the camera was running at. Given that the film is obviously the best surviving record of the sequence of events, much debate has centred on this issue. For example, the Nobel physicist Luis Alvarez cleverly came up with an estimate based on the facts that you can see background spectators clapping and that humans tend to clap at a particular frequency. John McAdams uses 18.3 fps, which translates to about 26 seconds in total for both shots.

As for the OP’s question, also from the same page:

6

Did the Zapruder film ever appear before the Warren Commission?

7

Yes - it was studied extensively by them. In fact, McAdams 18.3 fps estimate is that established by the FBI in tests on the actual camera and quoted in the Warren Report. See, for example, pages 96-7 of the Report.

8

Earl, you seem to be implying that there is something in the Zapruder film that would make someone question the “Lee Oswald acting alone” theory. But the ZF seems to bolster it. If you intend to be implying that, can you elaborate? I’m a little slow sometimes.

9

I recall that many stations wouldn’t show the entire film, and that what most people are familiar with isn’t the whole thing (i.e., many people have never seen the image of the final shot to the President’s head).

10

I’ve been more than a little confused by the statements that the Zapruder film wasn’t publicly available for a long time. It might not have been shown in its entirety on TV until the 1970s, but Life Magazine published a good chunk of it frame by frame back in the 1960s. (In fact, I’ve long suspected that the frame-by-frame device used by director Brian de Palma in his film Blow up was inspred by that particular issue of Life). Perhaps it wasn’t technically complete, but it had a lot of frames, and didn’t shy away from showing the graphic ones, blown up to show as much detail as possible.
And it’s no mis-recollection on my part. Life magazine stopped regular publication in 1972.

11

In the ZF, Kennedy emerges from behind the sign clutching his throat, while Connely is clearly shot a short time afterwards. This contradicts the “single bullet” theory. It is my understanding that the single bullet theory is necessary due to the time required to fire the weapon. Without the single bullet theory, too many bullets were fired within the time of the event for Oswald to have fired them all. Additionally, the final shot to Kennedy’s head looks like it came from the front, although this is debatable.

Eyewitnesses reported that gunshots seemed to be coming from everywhere, which isn’t surprising given that the location can produce a lot of echoes. However, a lot of eyewitnesses pointed towards the grassy knoll area as the location where gunshot sounds had come from. No shell casings or other evidence of a gunman from this area has been published that I’m aware of.

The combination of the inconsistancies of the ZF vs. the Warren Report plus the (admitedly shaky) evidence of a second gunman on the grassy knoll is what seems to have started the conspiracy theories. The political atmosphere at the time (where much of the younger generation was convinced that the governmet was lying to them all the time anyway) also probably contributed to their popularity.

12

Upon rereading I see that my response was ambiguous. The “probably so” was in response to the Zapruder film not being widely available and seen until the mid-70s, not that it gave evidence of conspiracy.

13

Is the ZF the only movie image film?

I should know this, but was/is there other film of the sequences prior to actual shots fired? (just curious. I should know this, but I avoided any Kennedy assasisnation convo since the movie JFK came out.)

14

The History Channel had an awesome series on this last year (A 5 parter, I think) Although it was very biased toward conspiracy. But they had a guy on there that either took lots of pictures when the shots were fired, or had a camera and filmed it from another angle. But the guy said that someone claiming to be a government agent said that they needed it for evidence, took it from him, and was never heard from again. But the show was trying to prove conspiracy, so who knows?

15

I saw that one on “The Men Who Killed Kennedy,” in which the, um, “History” Channel quite convincingly proved that it was the Corsican Mob.

If it’s the same guy, he might have been (claiming he was) in the Mary Moorman (sp?) Polaroid of the “Grassy Knoll gunman.” There was a bright spot on the photo, which they said was the lens of the camera this guy was using.

Or something like that.

16

As previous posters have already indicated, conspiracy theories concerning the John F. Kennedy assassination were widespread before the Zapruder film came to be televised regularly.

One reason the film is of such interest to some conspiracy theorists is that it clearly shows the President’s head snapping back as it is hit. This gives the impression that shots must have been coming from in front him, while Oswald, of course, was behind him.

CBS reporter Dan Rather was the first journalist to see the Zapruder film. He reported, falsely, that Kennedy’s head could be seen to lurch forward as it was hit.

I have read that Life Magazine edited the issue in which it first printed stills from the Zapruder film. In the first copies to be distributed, it is said that that Kennedy’s head appears to toss back. In the majority of copies, the selection of stills reprinted is different, and the motion of Kennedy’s head is not clear. While some conspiracy enthusiasts have claimed that Life was acting as part of a cover-up, the magazine soon came to support the belief that a conspiracy had been involved.

Some conspiracy writers have made this movement a cornerstone of their arguments. For instance, David S. Lifton, author of The Best Evidence, writes about the motion of Kennedy’s head continually in his book and insists that this can only mean that shots came from in front of him. While he offers no actual analysis or proof for this conclusion, he refers constantly to his background as a “physicist”.

Lifton, if I understand correctly, had a job buying and installing computer systems at the time he wrote his book. If he had any particular background in ballistics, he does not mention it. A physicist of rather greater distinction, Nobel Prize winner Luis Alvarez, undertook a detailed study of the Zapruder film and concluded that Kennedy’s head was moving precisely as would be expected if all of the shots which hit him came from the book depository.

The movement of Kennedy’s head was also a key element in Garrison’s arguments, and is much emphasized in the highly entertaining (but highly misleading) film JFK.

17

It would not be the content of the film that might lead to conspiracy “theories” so much as the mere fact that the film is shown so often. People see the film, then they sit down and have Thanksgiving dinner. The assasination becomes part of their conversation.
No matter what the film reveals or does not reveal, it will tend to raise folks’ awareness of the fact that we lost our President on this date in history, _ number of years ago. And for some people, that raised level of awareness will lead to questions about whether the Warren Commission’s findings were really true.

18

Is there any way to view the ZF on-line? I’ve been looking for an unedited copy for a long time. The film JFK shows some segments, bet never uncut. I’ve heard that you can see the driver of JFK’s car turn around, and supposedly, shoot the president with a hand gun (which seemingly explains why Jackie fled to the trunk of the car - a bad choice if there are assassins above you). According to at least William Cooper, you can see the driver turn around, and you can see something that could be a gun in his hand. Has anyone seen all of the film and be able to discredit this?

19

Nitpick: Blow Up is the classic (though somewhat dated) 1966 Antonioni film about the photographer. Blow Out is the 1981 De Palma movie (clearly inspired thematically at least in part by Blow Up) in which the sound engineer played by Travolta reassembles the film from the frame-by-frame publication and compares it to his recording of the event.

But yeah, you’re probably right that it’s that issue of Life that gave De Palma the idea.

20

My favorite (though not scientifically rigorous) debunking of this came from Penn & Teller’s book, “How to Play with your Food.” They shot canteloupes with the same sort of rifle Oswald used. What happened? Every time, the melon fell back TOWARD the gunman. Why? The innards of the melon were yanked out after the bullet exited, creating a jet that pushed it in the opposite direction.

(Anyone know if the bullets went completely through JFK or were lodged in his head?)