Director Alex Cox screens the Zapruder film

Alex Cox, the creative cinematic mind who gave us “Repo Man” and “Sid and Nancy,” offers his reflections on the saddest, shortest movie ever, the Zapruder film. He relies on Doug Horne’s original research. (H/T Tad)

I’m not convinced the limousine came to a halt amid the gunfire.

As for the proposition that the Zapruder film was altered, I used to think it was physically impossible. I no longer think that.

JFK at the movies

“The cinema of assassination inspired by JFK” (May 2, 2013)

14 conspiracy movies inspired by Dallas“(Nov. 18, 2013)

‘Parkland’ struggles to find an audience” (Oct. 8, 1963)

“Which David Mamet will direct his JFK film?”  (May 18, 2013)

“The escapist impulse of ‘Letters to Jackie,” (June 20, 2013)

 

5 comments

  1. Bill says:

    I think a closer study of the testimony of Dr. Gregory, the Parkland Emergency Room Dr. who attended Governor Connolly, will help clear up issues about fragments from CE399 being ‘more than those available than on an intact missile’. This is the issue created by many CT’ers after all.

    Governor Connolly’s right arm was probably just as high as his neck area as he collapsed/was pulled over by his wife after z 313. In this frame and in the subsequent relevant time frame from the film one can see that it is entirely possible that Connolly’s right arm was the recipient of a spray of bullet fragments (which were embedded into his skin) after they had been blasted out of JFK’s skull and continued moving forward striking him on the dorsal side of his right arm.

    Anyway…Dr. Gregory’s testimony most certainly leans this way and, on the face value of what he said, accounts for bits of clothing, ‘metal fragments’, etc on the wrist.

    Peace.

  2. David Power says:

    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKholland.htm

    This is interesting.Holland recounts all the details from memory without the aid in 67 of zapruder and makes a clear distinction between the jfk and connoly shots, as does connally himself.
    Do not like the tampering of zapruder idea but these people are certain they were separate shots..

  3. jeff says:

    The sign in the Zfilm is a fake or a photo shop because the legs of the sign in the Zfilm are perfectly straight and perfectly parallel to each other BUT the actual sign the legs are NOT parallel the uphill leg is at an angle while the Lower leg is straight up and down.

  4. “The sign in the Zfilm is a fake or a photo shop”~jeff

    Sorry jeff, you cannot use Photoshop in film. of course they didn’t have digital editing tools of any kind in 1963.

    I suggest you read this illustrated commentary of Frame 220, on the perceived anomalies of the sign and the posts holding it up:

    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/#comment-4602

    \\][//

  5. “As for the proposition that the Zapruder film was altered, I used to think it was physically impossible. I no longer think that.”~Morley

    It is indeed physically impossible to to have altered the Zapruder film. The impossible part is getting whatever special effects are claimed to have been done transferred to Kodachrome II film, and particularly to retain all of the hallmarks, of the film date, the processing dates, etc which are still existent on the extant film.

    “In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a
    daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about
    5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about
    1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the
    spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual
    response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination. !The film
    was not designed for printing response so that its dye set matched the
    spectral sensitivity of laboratory intermediate negative or positive films.
    A reversal duplicating film was available, but that was for direct simple
    copies, and not expected to be used as an intermediate. Further the
    film’s daylight sensitivity; contrast and spectral characteristics do not
    render it receptive for use as a “print” medium – hence, one “hell-of-a”
    problem for someone trying to replicate a Kodachrome original (Note: the
    goal now being to create a “Kodachrome original”) by using special
    optical effects!”~~Roland Zavada

    Do you understand what this means Jeff? It is not a difficult concept to grasp! What it means is that you cannot use artificial light to film on Kodachrome II and end up with a film that has all the qualities as one shot in natural light.

    ALL projections systems must as a practical necessity use artificial light. For a complete exposition on these issues see:

    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more