Talk:Abraham Zapruder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject United States / Texas (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as Low-importance).

33rd degree mason[edit]

Can we remove this section about him being a "Freemason of the 33rd degree" . Firstly, Freemasonry has only 3 degrees. The 3rd being the Master Mason is the last degree of masony. Only some very specific rites have more. To have 33 degrees it must be Scottish rite masonry (which is not a universal Freemason rite, and is not considered to be "regular" Freemasonry.

Lastly, what does Zapruder being a Freemason have to do with anything related to the article ? Is it some attempt to imply a link, or some tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff ?


Can anyone verify this latest entry (the FBI note?) --Magicker71 17:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With Wikipedia user Gamaliel repeatedly deleting the freely available, documented, and printed Warren Commission reference (Warren Commission Document, CD87) of Abraham Zapruder sensing a shot come from behind Mr. Zapruder during the assassination, it is transparent that Gamaliel is more interested in hiding and censoring a Warren Commissioned documented reference than he is in presenting a documented fact. 22:22, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's quite simple and it has nothing to do with the Warren Commission or censorship. Wikipedia is not the place to present the full text of memos. Wikisource is. This is an encyclopedia, and we don't present primary sources here. See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pop culture[edit]

Three of the four entries were not about Zapruder, they were about his film, and the fourth, the Marilyn Manson one, is too trivial to really mention. We don't need to mention every time a song's lyrics mention someone. --Golbez 07:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good argument, and I've moved them. But instead of just deleting them, you could have moved them yourself. Don't just delete on Wikipedia. That's lazy and ultimately destructive. Do not delete-- improve. Our motto. If it's in the wrong place, fix it. SBHarris 09:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I will delete trivia I see as unuseful, especially when it's in the wrong article. I am not destroying, I am sprucing. Once a bit of useless trivia is on Wikipedia, it does not get to live there for eternity. --Golbez 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rush-Holland article[edit]

The Rush-Holland opinion piece is one of numerous theories about the Zapruder film, a film about which entire books of which have been written from the various sides of the controversy. Because this is a biographical article about Abraham Zapruder, and not the Zapruder film article, I am parking the newly added section below:

The Zapruder film has often been seen as a "complete record of the Kennedy assassination". This view is, however, challenged by Max Holland, author of "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes", and the professional photographer Johann Rush in a joint editorial piece published by The New York Times on November 22, 2007.[1] Holland and Rush point out that Zapruder temporarily stopped filming at frame 132, when only police motorcycles were visible. When he resumed filming, frame 133 already shows the presidential motorcade in view. This pause could have great significance for the interpretation of the assassination, Holland and Rush suggest. One of the sources of controversy with the Warren Report has been its difficulty in satisfactorily accounting for the sequencing of the assassination. A specific mystery concerns what happened to the one of Oswald's three shots that missed (and how he came to miss at what was assumed to be close range). Holland and Rush argue that the break in the Zapruder film might conceal a first shot earlier than analysts have hitherto assumed, and point out that in this case a horizontal traffic mast would temporarily have obstructed Oswald's view of his target. In the authors' words, "The film, we realize, does not depict an assassination about to commence. It shows one that had already started."

Walloon (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)



"...United States PRS Special Agent..." 'PRS' is wiki linked. Yet, the disambiguation page it goes to does not have a sensible option for what PRS stands for in this case. It appears as if it's a US executive department? Never heard of it before. Mojodaddy (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


'At 9:55 p.m. Dallas time on November 22, United States PRS Special Agent Maxwell D. Phillips sent a hand-written memo (Warren Commission Document, CD87) to U.S. Secret Service Chief James Rowley that accompanied one of the first generation copies said of Zapruder's origins of at least one shot, "According to Mr Zapruder the position of the assassin was behind Mr Zapruder." ' Can someone sort this sentence out? (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


This seems to breach WP:NPOV to me. What do others think? --John (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The passage under discussion is: The group took the film to the television station WFAA to be developed....Unfortunately, WFAA was not equipped to develop 8–mm film, so Zapruder's footage was taken to Dallas' Eastman Kodak processing plant, which developed it immediately. Comes now the editor who changed the word but to unfortunately, to defend himself...
This has nothing to do with point of view, nothing to do with theories of the assassination, nothing to do with whether world history would have turned out better if WFAA could have developed the film or whether WFAA might have done some secret thing with it, or anything else. It's just a way of carrying along the of narrative three people trying to get some film developed. "They took the film to place X to have it developed, but unfortunately place X couldn't do it. So they had to take it somewhere else." If you want, substitute disappointingly or to their dismay or they were crestfallen upon finding that... -- or just go back to but. They all say the same thing, with no substantive difference in connotation as used here. But (or, perhaps, disappointingly) some say it with a bit more flair than others. I leave it to you. EEng (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronounciation of name[edit]

One editor changed text's prescription for pronounciation of Z's name, based on his own listening to a video of interview with Z. I think we should just say nothing until a RS (published bio, obit, or whatever) gives a reliable answer. Competing versions so far are, (he pronounced the name with nearly equal stress on the three syllables) and (he pronounced the name with stress on the second syllable). Let us all pray the light of truth turns its lens soon on this momentous question. EEng (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's Zapruder's TV interview on YouTube - sounds like he stresses the first syllable to me :) Muzilon (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
To me, also. But whatever he said, it certainly was NOT "zah-PRU-der" which is the nearly universal way most people say his name. So I thought it would be nice if WP fixed up that misconception. However, falsehoods take on a life of their own, video or not. Zapruder film or not! ;) SBHarris 18:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the segment with his pronunciation to the quote box, as opposed to including the pronunciation at the top of the article. This should be sufficient, I hope. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If any editor knows how to render the pronunciation of his last name in IPA, that would be useful in the first line as is the style of other articles, But adding the Russian spelling of his name is irrelevant - he was born in Russia as we say, but he was American - and peculiar to do, if not POV. We don't do this for others. Tvoz/talk 19:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there really a film?[edit]

It says at the bottom that there a film about the life of Zapruder called Frame 313 but I never seen it anyway and I do not think it is real. Can somebody tell me if it is real or not because if it is not, I do not think it will be on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

YouTube, Creative Commons License for JFK Kennedy shooting, Zapruder audiovideo[edit]

In Kennedy assassination, using computerized techniques, synchronized with the Zapruder film of the shooting sound of shots, registred by a policemen of the Department of Police of Dallas, in Dealey Plaza. The file JFK Kennedy shooting, Zapruder audiovideo that appears on YouTube has a "Creative Commons License". This is a pubblic domain video. It is free to pubblicate on the Wikipedia.-- Roger tellme 10:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


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) 10:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richard27182, following on from the discussion at: talk:Zapruder film, I would be in favor of changing the word to "unexpectedly" as has been suggested there. It seems not as many editors follow this pgae as there. I have now placed this on my watchlist. Thank you ツ . Fylbecatulous talk 11:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Fylbecatulous.  I guess the film itself is of more interest than the man who filmed it. Anyway I've made the change to both articles.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. (FYI: I follow both pages. I assumed that whatever changes were made to Zapruder film would be made here, too.) - Location (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. It reads well. Good change.  :)) Fylbecatulous talk 12:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
@Location:  @Fylbecatulous:
It does indeed look good, in both articles.   But I think just about all the credit should go to Location for suggesting the word "unexpectedly."  I would not have thought of that myself.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Nor would I. Thank you, Location. Fylbecatulous talk 11:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abraham Zapruder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)