Simple proof that the Zapruder film is 100% Authentic!

[Jerry Freeman]

Once again...the 100% authentic grainy, blurry and jumpy as hell 8 tiny mm film where the arrow is pointing is showing what could be one of the roses. Look around at all the other roses doing the same bouncing----



I also fail to see boogie men in the bushes. The film shows me that there was an obvious ambush there and shooters could have been anywhere.

[John Mytton]

Once again...the 100% authentic grainy, blurry and jumpy as hell 8 tiny mm film where the arrow is pointing is showing what could be one of the roses. Look around at all the other roses doing the same bouncing----

Roses are red and what's next to the arrow isn't the same shade and how you expect that rose to suddenly jump across the car is anybody's guess? Also, the roses are bobbing around on stems and the piece of matter is falling to the floor, I don't see the reason for your connection. Maybe next time think before you blindly smash your keyboard? K?

And I'm guessing that you think that the piece of matter seen in Z314 was also a rose?





JohnM

[Steve Barber]

Once again...the 100% authentic grainy, blurry and jumpy as hell 8 tiny mm film where the arrow is pointing is showing what could be one of the roses. Look around at all the other roses doing the same bouncing----



I also fail to see boogie men in the bushes. The film shows me that there was an obvious ambush there and shooters could have been anywhere.

   Then look at a clearer copy of the film!  It's not my film!  It's Paul Seaton's copy. I simply pointed it out to him using the MPI version of the film.  While you're at it, watch the entire sequence beginning with the fatal shot  and see that it comes from JFK's head.  We already know that both Connally's were struck with head matter, based on their testimonies and interviews!

[Dan O'meara]

And the backward head movement is from...WHAT exactly??

In my opinion, the backwards movement of JFK's head and body from a shot from behind is the most counter-intuitive aspect of this case.
I was originally convinced it was caused by a shot from the right front because it seems so obvious when watching the Z-film.
My reasoning was simple - the immense amount of damage to JFK's head indicates a massive force acted on his head at the moment of impact and this force must be reflected in the way his head moves.



The "back and to the left" motion must surely depict the direction the force acted on his head.
Then I examined this clip of the head-shot very closely:



The following analysis is my own, personal interpretation of what I see in this clip:

The first movement, at the moment of impact, is forward. This indicates a shot from behind.
The massive flap of scalp, with skull bone still attached, is blown down by the side of his head. To me, this also indicates a shot from behind. A shot from the front would've blown this section of scalp backwards, towards the back of his head (IMO)
A large crater in the top of his head confirms the damage shown in the autopsy pic/Gif above, and highlights the massive amount of force that has acted on the head.
At the moment of impact JFK's head is leaning forward and down, his chin appears to be resting at the very top of his chest.

So, if a massive force was applied to the back of JFK's head while his head was in this forward "resting" position, what would happen?
The very first movement of the head would be forward and down (down, because his head is attached to his neck, so it would move in an arc, not a straight line).
But his head is in this "resting" position, with his chin, more or less, resting on the area at the top of his chest.
This means his head has nowhere to go and is driven into the top of his chest where it experiences an equal and opposite reactive force. It is this reactive force that drives his head backwards and upwards (in an arc).
His head, basically, "rebounds" off the upper part of his torso:



No "jet effect" [what a crock!]
No neuro-muscular reaction [there is zero rigidity in any of his movements]
Just simple physics.

[Jerry Freeman]

Roses are red.... 

..and violets are blue-
Mytton's never wrong
I mean hell... just ask you.



The arrow points to a rose I believe because just to the left of that it is a fuller bloom and to the left of that one is also a rose I believe because it looks just like the flower with the arrow. But probably not enough people look at your crap to care anyway.

[Jerry Freeman]

A further illustration....My wife is a florist and tells me that late bloomers are sorted together with an arrangement of full blooms.
 Especially if there is no vase to keep them watered....
That way roses are blooming continually throughout the visit---



It was customary for dignitary lady visitors to Texas to receive yellow bouquets of roses.
Strange that the first lady received red ones.

[Jerry Freeman]

I will stop posting in this thread as you request ...

Mytton did not say to quit posting here. He can't do that.
 It's about your images.
 So tell him to 'request' that his pal Chapman quit posting his idiotic images in every thread on the forum.

[John Mytton]

Another alteration claim doing the rounds is the colour of the coat of the lady(Babushka Lady) behind Brehm and his son, in Costello's Zapruder frames her coat appears to be a different colour but if you look closely her coat is opening up in the wind.



I originally made these Gif's to refute another alteration claim that Brehm's son moved too quickly in a few frames but a stabilized Gif shows natural movement. Anyway the gif also shows the lady's brown coat billowing in the wind.





The wind blowing up Elm street also affected Muchmore's and Hill's dresses.



JohnM