Keven Hofeling

What would also be useful are David Wrone's audio and notes of his 2003 interview of Dino Brugioni... The following is what Wrone published in his book about that interview.[1] [1] Wrone, David R. (2003). The Zapruder film: reframing JFK’s assassination (p. 21, para. 3): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/zapruderfilmrefr0000wron/page/20/mode/2up?q=0183 Washington headquarters sought help from the CIA to study the film. Just before midnight on Sunday, November 24, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John McCone, telephoned at his home Dino Brugioni, the agency's foremost photoanalyst at its renowned National Photographic Interpretation Center and ordered him to "go in" to the NPIC. Two Secret Service men were coming with a photographic emergency. Brugioni went, not knowing what to expect. At midnight two Secret Service agents appeared with a roll of 8mm film, the Zapruder film. Because the NPIC did not possess a projector to show the film, he telephoned the owner of a private film company in the area, got him out of bed, and met him at his store, where he acquired one. With white gloves on as was typically done for "precious films," Brugioni threaded the film and then screened it, the scene of JFK's death shot at frame 313 stunning them all. The Secret Service wanted the film timed and a selection of prints made for them. With a stopwatch Brugioni timed the film and made two "enormous briefing boards," thirty-six by thirty-six inches, hinged for display, and a duplicate with twenty or more enlargements of the tiny frames into five-by-seven-inch prints made with absolutely the "world's finest" precision enlarger. The agents were especially interested in prints that showed the limousine just before it reached the sign, when it passed behind the sign, and immediately after it emerged from behind the sign. Each of the mounted prints had attached beneath it the time down to the split second. When Brugioni was finished the agents took the film back. He then sent both copies of his boards to Director McCone who sent one to the Secret Service. One set ultimately went to the Warren Commission, which set eventually came back to the NPIC where it was stored in the locked cabinet of the vault room, until a congressional committee sometime in the 1970s asked for everything the CIA had done domestically. Then the set was sent to the then director of the CIA, disposition unknown.[69] These are unrelated to the documents associated with the Rockefeller Commission discussed elsewhere. [69]. Interview with Dino Brugioni, May 3, 2003.

Mr. @Jeremy Bojczuk: David Wrone again? The following is Doug Horne exposing David Wrone for knowingly and blatantly concealing key evidence and disseminating disinformation:[1] [1] Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1238-1239). Seems to me that this type of yellow journalism and deliberate dissemination of propaganda places in question your view of David Wrone as being an authoritative source of information about the Zapruder film, don't you think? And with regard to Loudon Wainwright, whose book you admit you haven't even read -- yet you still hold him out as an authority on the Zapruder film because propagandist David Wrone said so -- in the second paragraph of page 323 of his book[2] we find Wainwright regurgitating the same cover story as the other so-called "authorities" you rely upon for LIFE's motivation for paying Abraham Zapruder an additional $100,000.00 ($1,026,715.69 in 2024 dollars) on Monday, 11/25/1963 to purchase the motion picture rights to the Zapruder film, the camera-original film and the three first day copies [that cover story being that LIFE publisher C. D. Jackson had viewed the Zapruder film in New York on Monday morning, 11/25/1963, and had been so disturbed by the graphic imagery of the head shot that he decided to purchase the film in order to suppress said imagery from the American public]. In the first paragraph of the same page Wainwright regurgitates the propaganda that Richard Stolley obtained Zapruder's first day copy of the film on Saturday, 11/23/1963, and goes on in the second paragraph to regurgitate the propaganda that Stolley next sent Zapruder's one remaining first day copy of the Zapruder film on to New York where it was viewed by LIFE publisher (and CIA asset) C. D. Jackson: [2] The great American magazine : an inside history of Life : Wainwright, Loudon, 1946- (p. 323, pars. 1-2): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. (1986). Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/greatamericanmag00wain/page/322/mode/2up Let's review the initial source of the propaganda, and the evidence which exposes it as propaganda. It traces back to yet another of the sources that you have represented in one of your posts as being the authoritive source on the activities of LIFE magazine in relation to the Zapruder film, that being Richad Stolley's article in the November 1, 1973 edition of Esquire entitled "What Happened Next..." (https://classic.esquire.com/article/1973/11/1/what-happened-next) in which Stolley wrote that he slipped out the back door of Abraham Zapruder's office with the camera-original Zapruder film, AND Zapruder's one remaining first day copy, on Saturday 11/23/1963, although the first contract between Zapruder and LIFE had specifically provided that LIFE would retain the camera-original film until Friday, 11/29/1963, and then, and only then, on that date, Zapruder would exchange the first day copy with LIFE for the original. Stolley also appears to be the initial source of the cover story that LIFE's decision to shell out an additional $100,000.00 ($1,026,715.69 in 2024 dollars) to Zapruder (making for a total of $1,540,073.53 in 2024 dollars) for the camera-original film, the three first day copies, and the motion picture rights (and evidently, for Zapruder's silence, as Zapruder committed perjury when he testified before the Warren Commission that LIFE had paid only $25,000.00 ["Mr. ZAPRUDER. $25,000 was paid and I have given it to the Firemen’s and Policemen’s Fund."]. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Zapruder.pdf]). We know all of that is propaganda because of the actual terms of the first contract, as well as some basic well-known facts about Abraham Zapruder exhibiting his first day copy throughout the weekend of the assassination, up to Monday, 11/25/1963. As Richard Trask wrote:[3] Stolley states in his recollections that the other Zapruder copy was sent to New York, meaning that Zapruder would have been left without possession of any copy of his film. This was not the case, however, since the language of the Saturday morning contract indicates Zapruder retained his third, first-generation copy. Zapruder and others also later testified that Agent Sorrels came to Zapruder's office several times that weekend to have the film shown to various people. From Saturday afternoon, November 23, until about Tuesday, November 26, with the two copies lent to the Secret Service both having been sent off to Washington, Sorrels did not have possession of a copy of the film. It also appears that others, including CBS television reporter Dan Rather, saw the film on Monday, November 25, as the reporter broadcast a description of its contents that day, saying he had just viewed it. [3]. Trask, Richard. B. (2005). National nightmare on six feet of film : Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (p. 131, par. 1) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/nationalnightmar0000tras/page/106/mode/2up Furthermore, Abaraham Zapruder's business partner, Erwin Schwartz, is on the record stating that he delivered Zapruder's first day copy of the film (which he had mistakenly believed to be the camera-original film) to Richard Stolley at the Adolphus Hotel on Tuesday, 11/26/1963, pursuant to the terms of the second contract with LIFE for $150,000.00 ($1,540,073.53 today): "Erwin delivered the film to Richard Stolley on Tuesday—the day after the funeral. He delivered it to the Adolphus Hotel."[4] [4]. Erwin Schwartz Interview, Nov. 21, 1994 -- https://medium.com/@bartholoviews/erwin-schwartz-interview-nov-21-1994-c86708034449 And that takes us back to where we began, which is that the only logical explanation for the propaganda and disinformation set forth above is that it is a CIA/LIFE cover story for the decision that was made to buy the Zapruder film outright (as well as purchase Abraham Zapruder's silence) upon the discovery at Hawkeyeworks that it was impossible -- given the shortage of time and the inadequate film technology of the period -- to adequately sanitize the film of all indications of alteration. That is the genuine rationale underlying LIFE's decision to renegotiate the first contract of Saturday, 11/23/1963, with Abraham Zapruder, by increasing its offer to $150,000.00 ($1,540,073.53 in 2024 dollars) for the camera-original film and three first day copies, as well as the motion picture rights, on Monday, 11/25/1963. Doug Horne offers the following detailed explanation, which unlike the CIA/LIFE cover story, is not riddled with fraudulent misrepresentations and lies, is supported by the available evidence, and actually makes sense (though maybe not for those of you who believe the CIA is your friend): The answers to this valid question are clear to me: (1) those altering the Zapruder film at “Hawkeyeworks” on Sunday, November 24, 1963 were extremely pressed for time, and could only do “so much” in the twelve-to-fourteen hour period available to them; (2) the technology available with which to alter films in 1963 (both the traveling matte, and aerial imaging) had limitations—there was no digital CGI technology at that time—and therefore, I believe the forgers were limited to basic capabilities like blacking out the exit wound in the right-rear of JFK’s head; painting a false exit wound on JFK’s head on the top and right side of his skull (both of these seem to have been accomplished through “aerial imaging”—that is, animation cells overlaid “in space” on top of the projected images of the frames being altered, using a customized optical printer with an animation stand, and a process camera to re-photograph each self-matting, altered frame); and removing exit debris frames, and even the car stop, through step-printing. In my view, the alterations that were performed were aimed at quickly removing the most egregious evidence of shots from the front (namely, the exit debris leaving the skull toward the left rear, and the gaping exit wound which the Parkland Hospital treatment staff tells us was present in the right-rear of JFK’s head). I believe that in their minds, the alterationists of 1963 were racing against the clock—they did not know what kind of investigation, either nationally or in Texas, would transpire, and they were trying to sanitize the film record as quickly as possible before some investigative body demanded to “see the film evidence.” There was not yet a Warren Commission the weekend following the assassination, and those who planned and executed the lethal crossfire in Dealey Plaza were intent upon removing as much of the evidence of it as possible, as quickly as possible. As I see it, they did not have time for perfection, or the technical ability to ensure perfection, in their “sanitization” of the Zapruder film. They did an imperfect job, the best they could in about 12-14 hours, which was all the time they had on Sunday, November 24, 1963, at “Hawkeyeworks.” Besides, there was no technology available in 1963 that could convincingly remove the “head-snap” from the Zapruder film; you could not animate JFK’s entire body without it being readily detectable as a forgery, so the “head-snap” stayed in the film. (The “head snap” may even be an inadvertent result—an artifact of apparently rapid motion—caused by the optical removal of several “exit debris” frames from the film. When projected at normal speed at playback, any scene in a motion picture will appear to speed up if frames have been removed. Those altering the film may have believed it was imperative to remove the exit debris travelling through the air to the rear of President Kennedy, even if that did induce apparent “motion” in his body which made it appear as though he might have been shot from the front. The forgers may have had no choice, in this instance, but to live with the lesser of two evils. Large amounts of exit debris traveling toward the rear would have been unmistakable proof within the film of a fatal shot from the front; whereas a “head snap” is something whose causes could be debated endlessly, without any final resolution.) Those who altered the Zapruder film knew that the wound alteration images in frames 317, 321, 323, 335, and 337, for example, were “good enough” to show investigators the film on a flimsy movie screen coated with diamond dust, but they also knew the alterations were not good enough to withstand close scrutiny. That is why I believe C.D. Jackson—the CIA’s asset at LIFE and its best friend in the national print media—instructed Richard Stolley to again approach Abraham Zapruder on Sunday night, and to offer a much higher sale price for Zapruder’s movie, in exchange for LIFE’s total ownership of the film, and all rights to the film. By Sunday night, the name of the game at LIFE was suppression, not profit-making. By Sunday night, November 24th, C. D. Jackson was wearing his CIA hat, not his Time, Inc. businessman’s hat. After striking the new deal with Time, Inc. on Monday, Zapruder received an immediate $25,000.00, and the remainder of his payments ($25,000.00 per year, each January, through January of 1968), were effectively structured as “hush money” payments. His incentive to keep his mouth shut about the film’s alteration would clearly be his desire to keep getting paid $25,000.00 each January, for the next five years. The alterationists in 1963 also had a “disposal” problem, for they had three genuine “first day copies” of the Zapruder film floating around which threatened to proliferate quickly, unless they could get them out of circulation immediately, replaced with new “first generation copies” stuck from the new “Hawkeyeworks” master delivered to NPIC on Sunday night. For them, speed was of the essence, not perfection. I believe that once the new “master” was completed at “Hawkeyeworks” early Sunday evening, three new first-generation copies were struck from it, as well as at least one “dirty dupe” for the LIFE editorial crew standing by in Chicago. Only after these products were exposed at Rochester, early Sunday evening, was the “new Zapruder film” (masquerading as an unslit, 16 mm wide camera-original “double 8” film) couriered down to NPIC by “Bill Smith,” who took his cock-and-bull story along with him, to his everlasting discredit. Of course, the cock-and-bull story worked, since Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter knew nothing about the event with the true camera-original film at NPIC the previous night. McMahon and Hunter had no reason, on Sunday night, 11/24/63, to disbelieve “Bill Smith” when he told them that he had brought “the camera-original film” with him, after it had been “developed” at Rochester. After all, the product handed to them looked like a camera-original “double 8” film: it was a 16 mm wide unslit film, with sprocket holes on both sides, and exhibited opposing image strips, upside down in relation to each other, and going in reverse directions. I am quite sure that by Tuesday, November 26th, all of the original “first day copies” had been swapped out with the three replacements made at “Hawkeyeworks” Sunday night from the new “original.” NPIC finished up with the new “original” Zapruder film by some time Monday morning, November 25th, or perhaps by mid-day Monday at the latest. McMahon went home after the enlargements (the 5 x 7 prints) were run off, but the graphics people at NPIC still had to finish assembling the three sets of four panel briefing boards. And the rest is history. Now, through the magic of high resolution digital scans—technology undreamed of in 1963, in an analog world—the forgery and fraud of November, 1963 is being exposed, slowly but surely. Alterations that were “good enough” to hold up on a flimsy, portable 8 mm movie screen back in 1963, look quite bad—very crude—today, under the magnifying glass of today’s digital technology. The two back-to-back “briefing board events” the weekend of President Kennedy’s assassination at the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, D.C.—compartmentalized operations bracketing the Zapruder film’s alteration at the “Hawkeyeworks” lab in Rochester, N.Y.—are the signposts that illuminate for us, like two spotlights piercing the night sky, the hijacking of our nation’s history almost 49 years ago.[5] [5] Horne, Douglas P. (2012, May 19). The two NPIC Zapruder film events: Signposts pointing to the film’s alteration | a Study in the Assassination of JFK. https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ In a forthcoming post I am going to methodically present the evidence that Abraham Zapruder's camera-original film and best first day copy (which he kept and exhibited throughout the weekend of the assassination) were slit to 8mm format, and that the two copies Zapruder turned over to the Secret Service on Friday evening, 11/22/1963, were in unslit 16 mm format. The implications of this are that the camera-original Zapruder film was the only film out of Zapruder's four films that Dino Brugioni could have been working on at NPIC on Saturday night, 11/23/1963: The two Secret Service copies were in limbo throughout the weekend (with the FBI being unable to make copies of the duplicate that went to Washington in its own facilities, and having to wait for a commercial film lab to open on Monday, 11/26/1963; and the Secret Service in Dallas having to go to the Eastland Kodak Company to have their 16mm unslit copy projected on special equipment), and, as we have seen above, we know that Abraham Zapruder's first day copy -- which was slit to 8mm format -- remained in Zapruder's custody until Tuesday, 11/26/1963, and therefore could not be the 8mm film that the Secret Service delivered to Brugioni at NPIC. The film that the Secret Service delivered to Dino Brugioni at NPIC on Saturday evening, 11/23/1963, was the only remaining 8mm film that was unaccounted for, and we can be certain that Brugioni was working on an 8mm film because he had to have a local merchant open his shop in order that NPIC could procure an 8mm projector to view it. Your propaganda disseminating authoritive establishment film historians notwithstanding, this is definitive and conclusive: Dino Brugioni had the camera-original Zapruder film at NPIC on Saturday evening, 11/23/1963. As for the story Loudon Wainwright tells about LIFE's proceedings in Chicago,[6] I'm sure that all of it is true, except for the timeframe. LIFE would have received its dirty dupe from Hawkeyeworks around the same time that the new "original" film was being delivered to Homer McMahon at NPIC on Sunday evening, 11/24/1963. LIFE was thereby able to hustle and get the issue running on the presses in time to have copies on the newsstands by Tuesday morning, 11/26/1963. And but for Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter coming to the attention of the ARRB in the 1990's, the CIA and LIFE would have had an impenetrable cover story for the falsification of the Zapruder film which they had jointly engineered along with the Secret Service. [6] The great American magazine : an inside history of Life : Wainwright, Loudon, 1946- (pp. 328-329): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. (1986). Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/greatamericanmag00wain/page/322/mode/2up These are my copies of the 11/29/1963 and 10/2/1964 issues of LIFE magazine. And this is the difference between the grainy black and white low-resolution photos that were struck from the dirty dupe for the 11/29/1963 issue and the crisp colorful high-resolution color photos struck off of the extant "original" Zapruder film for the 10/2/1964 issues of LIFE magazine. LIFE had just spent $1,540,073.53 in 2024 dollars for these photographs (LIFE never exhibited the film as a motion picture), and if they had received the camera-original Zapruder film on Saturday afternoon, 11/24/1963, as the CIA/LIFE cover story claims they did, I'm sure they would have managed to get the photos into the 11/29/1963 issue in full, crisp and clear color. Instead, they fulfilled what they believed to be their patriotic duty to the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security State, and the controversy over the alteration of the Zapruder film was born. No, Zapruder film alteration apologists, the American Gestapo is not your friend. Wake up.

To which "corroborating reports" do you refer with regard to the cover story for the LIFE decision to shell out an additional $100,000.00 ($1,026,715.69 in 2024 dollars) to purchase the motion picture rights to the Zapruder film, the camera-original film and the three first day copies [that cover story being that LIFE publisher C.D. Jackson had viewed the Zapruder film in New York on Monday morning, 11/25/1963, and had been so disturbed by the graphic imagery of the head shot that he decided to purchase the film in order to suppress said imagery from the American public]? Would that possibly be Richad Stolley's article in the November 1, 1973 edition of Esquire entitled "What Happened Next..." (https://classic.esquire.com/article/1973/11/1/what-happened-next) in which Stolley wrote that he slipped out the back door of Abraham Zapruder's office with the camera-original Zapruder film AND Zapruder's one remaining first day copy on Saturday 11/23/1963 after signing their first contract which had specifically provided that LIFE would retain the camera-original film until Friday, 11/29/1963, and then, on that date, Zapruder would exchange the first day copy with LIFE for the original? The implication being that it was the first day copy that C.D. Jackson had viewed Monday morning, 11/25/1963? About these particular claims of Stolley's, Richard Trask wrote:[1] Stolley states in his recollections that the other Zapruder copy was sent to New York, meaning that Zapruder would have been left without possession of any copy of his film. This was not the case, however, since the language of the Saturday morning contract indicates Zapruder retained his third, first-generation copy. Zapruder and others also later testified that Agent Sorrels came to Zapruder's office several times that weekend to have the film shown to various people. From Saturday afternoon, November 23, until about Tuesday, November 26, with the two copies lent to the Secret Service both having been sent off to Washington, Sorrels did not have possession of a copy of the film. It also appears that others, including CBS television reporter Dan Rather, saw the film on Monday, November 25, as the reporter broadcast a description of its contents that day, saying he had just viewed it. [1]. Trask, Richard. B. (2005). National nightmare on six feet of film : Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (p. 131, par. 1) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/nationalnightmar0000tras/page/106/mode/2up Furthermore, Abaraham Zapruder's business partner is on the record stating that he delivered Zapruder's first day copy of the film (which he had mistakenly believed to be the camera-original film) to Richard Stolley at the Adolphus Hotel on Tuesday, 11/26/1963, pursuant to the terms of the second contract with LIFE for $150,000.00 ($1,540,073.53 today): "Erwin delivered the film to Richard Stolley on Tuesday—the day after the funeral. He delivered it to the Adolphus Hotel." Erwin Schwartz Interview, Nov. 21, 1994 -- https://medium.com/@bartholoviews/erwin-schwartz-interview-nov-21-1994-c86708034449 In essence, what we are looking at here is the CIA/LIFE cover story for the decision that was made to buy the Zapruder film outright (as well as purchase Abraham Zapruder's silence) upon the discovery at Hawkeyeworks that it was impossible -- given the shortage of time and the inadequate film technology of the period -- to adequately sanitize the film of all indications of alteration. An excellent point, though not in support of the thesis that you favor... LIFE had just stopped the presses on their previously planned 11/29/1963 issue and entirely reworked it to accommodate the story of the assassination, as well as spent $1,540,073.53 for the "original" Zapruder film and we are expected to believe that instead of using full color stills from the film (as LIFE would utilize in all future editions featuring Zapruder stills) they printed grainy low quality stills from a dirty dupe of the film? Per the very reasoning you have articulated, this makes sense only if it was because the Secret Service and the CIA maintained possession of the extant "original" Zapruder film during the two NPIC briefing board sessions throughout the weekend, thus forcing LIFE to make do with a black and white dirty dupe of the altered Zapruder film that was struck contemporaneous therewith and quickly couriered to Chicago for the 11/29/1963 edition.

Mr. Gram: It would appear that you have missed the significance of the Harrison Livingstone passage to which you have responded with speculation based upon some very dubious assumptions predicated upon the circular reasoning of establishment historians who have answered the question of the authenticity of the Zapruder film with the foregone conclusion that it is, tailoring their supporting evidence in reverse to support that conclusion.[1] [1] For example, Roland Zavada concluded in his final report for the ARRB, based upon a methodical analysis of the existing evidence, that the camera-original Zapruder film had been slit to 8mm, but then reversed himself in 2004 based upon his analysis of the Time-Life Zapruder film materials that were deeded to the Sixth Floor Museum (Zavada based his new conclusion upon indications that the first day copy of the Zapruder film purchased from Abraham Zapruder by LIFE, and the black and white dirty dupe copy of the Zapruder film LIFE had used for the stills in the 11/29/1963 issue of LIFE were struck from a 16mm unslit "original" film [assumed to be the camera-original], despite the testimony of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter that a 16mm unslit "original" Zapruder film had been delivered to them from CIA Hawkeyeworks where it must have been fabricated, based upon the evidence that the camera-original film and A. Zapruder's first day copy had been slit to 8mm, and the evidence that Secret Service copies 1 and 2 had been delivered to the Secret Service by A. Zapruder in unslit 16mm format). Subsequently, establishment historians and Zapruder film authenticity apologists, such as David Wrone and Richard Trask, based their conclusions that the camera-original Zapruder film remained in unslit 16mm format while in the possession of A. Zapruder upon Roland Zavada's amended conclusions, without any consideration of the alternative scenario or the evidence in support. Livingstone was raising the question of whether Rollie Zavada knew more about the NPIC briefing board sessions than he was publicly disclosing, and if you have any familiarity with the extensive communications between Livingstone and Zavada that Livingstone published in The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film[2], then you should have some awareness that there had been many indications that this was so. [2] Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (pp. 121-124): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183 It is my opinion that throughout his Zapruder film related work, Zavada consistently, carefully, and specifically tailored his conclusions to contradict the ARRB's revelations about the CIA's NPIC briefing board sessions, and continued to do so in response to the subsequent revelations about a second briefing board session conducted by Dino Brugioni that was first publicly revealed by historian David Wrone in 2005, and then further developed by the reporting of Peter Janney and Doug Horne in 2009 and 2010. What is particularly interesting about the NPIC scenario that Zavada described to Livingstone in May of 2004 is that while the ARRB revelations of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter involved a briefing board session using an unslit 16mm film, Zavada's NPIC scenario, as he described it to Livingstone in 2004, involved a slit 8mm Zapruder film which is consistent with the briefing board session that would later be described by Dino Brugioni (the first briefing board session which commenced late in the evening of 12/23/1963, and concluded early the next morning). Zavada was describing the first briefing board session conducted by Dino Brugioni prior to the time that the event had been publicly disclosed! As the Kodak chemist who developed Kodachrome II film, and then was designated by Kodak post-retirement to conduct the ARRB commissioned study of the Zapruder film, Zavada was, of course, well connected to Kodak, and Kodak through its joint operation of the highly classified Rochestester, Hawkeyeworks facility, was closely associated with the CIA. In 2009, Doug Horne expressed the following regrets about the involvement of Kodak and Roland Zavada in the ARRB study of the Zapruder film, raising these exact same concerns:[3] In 1996-1998 I viewed Rollie Zavada as an independent thinking Kodak retiree who, although he had a strong natural disposition to believe the Zapruder film in the Archives was authentic, was still an honest broker who simply had to be steered from time to time with the right questions, to ensure that what I then viewed as his 'natural bias' did not get in the way of performing a proper authenticity study. His refusal, in the autumn of 1997, to endorse my very strong request for the shooting of control film in Zapruder's camera made me question whether or not I could trust his judgment. As my study of his written report began in earnest in May of 1999, I was alarmed to find that he had published evidence that was possibly dispositive-test film shot in the same make and model cameras that did not consistently exhibit the 'full flush left' phenomenon seen in the extant film-without even commenting on its significance, as if he were oblivious to it. In recent years, even more careful scrutiny of his report and of his Appendix revealed to me that he 'cooked his report,' meaning that he ignored testimony from the key eyewitnesses he interviewed about: (1) the 'first day copies' not having been bracketed; (2) about the duplication of the 'first day copies' at 'full frame' (picture plus soundtrack) aperture; (3) about the edge printer lights having been turned off when the original film was processed (specifically, he did not acknowledge the implications of that fact); and (4) that he trivialized the very serious inconsistencies in regard to where the punched numbers were found on the three 'first generation' copies (in relation to normal practice). His recent decision to overturn the firm, formal conclusion in his 1998 report that the original film was slit in Dallas has, in my view, discredited him from any claim to being an 'honest broker' in technical matters involving the Zapruder film. It appears that Rollie Zavada is prepared to either ignore or to rewrite history, as necessary, to uphold the extant film's supposed authenticity. The question is: Why? Should his behaviors be viewed as a solitary example of the powerful effect that a strong natural bias can have on any scientific investigation or investigative endeavor? Or in his 'cooking of the books' in his Zapruder film authenticity study, was Rollie acting as an agent of Kodak, the company that ran the "Hawkeye Plant" (or "Hawkeyeworks," as Lifton called it in his article) for the CIA? I don't know the answer to this question, but I am suspicious. When analyzed together, the testimony of Dino Brugioni and Homer McMahon about the two NPIC Zapruder film events the weekend of the assassination make it very clear that a new 'original' film in an unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 format was delivered to NPIC Sunday night, November 24th one day after the true original, in 8 mm format, had been evaluated by a different group of people in the same facility. The Secret Service agent who delivered the 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 film to McMahon on Sunday night told him it had come from "Hawkeyeworks in Rochester," which had a specific meaning to both McMahon and Brugioni. McMahon knew that "Hawkeyeworks"was the code name for a highly classified CIA film lab at the main Kodak industrial facility in Rochester; and Brugioni confirmed to Peter Janney once again on May 5, 2009 (in a sixth interview) that at the "Hawkeye Plant," they could do ANYTHING with a motion picture film. [The eternal complaint of people like David Wrone who have had no patience with 'alterationists' about the 'who, where, and when' have now all been answered. Furthermore, intense government interest in the film the weekend of the assassination has now been conclusively proven by Brugioni and McMahon, as well.] In retrospect, I now view the ARRB's use of Kodak to examine the authenticity of the Zapruder film to have been a major blunder, given the knowledge we had then about the McMahon allegations. We knew what they implied, yet we went ahead and accepted the freebie of pro bono work so readily offered up by a company that was in financial extremis at the time. I do recall wondering a couple of times why this financially distressed company with a shrinking market share and an atrophied work force was spending so much money to help Uncle Sam. At the time I comforted myself by thinking that David Marwell and Jeremy Gunn were smarter than me-or at least wiser, if not smarter-and that surely they knew about the implications of what they were doing in selecting Kodak to perform the Zapruder film authenticity study. Unfortunately, Marwell presumed 'the Emperor was wearing clothes' in regard to the Zapruder film's authenticity, and the cash-strapped ARRB was too ready, in retrospect, to accept free goods and services from Kodak. Clearly, we all erred. Even if Rollie Zavada was a truly independent actor in all this, I will always wonder if he wasn't. For based upon the readily apparent implications of Homer McMahon's testimony, Kodak had been involved in altering the Zapruder film for the CIA the weekend of the assassination. Hindsight is always 20-20, but clearly we at the ARRB should have picked a different corporate entity to examine the authenticity of the Zapruder film, and should have ensured no Kodak involvement. Regrettably, we will all be wondering now until the end of time whether or not the Zavada report represents the independent conclusions of one individual, or whether it represents a powerful corporation intent upon providing itself with 'plausible deniability.' Surely, helping to cover-up the true facts in the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 is not something that any corporate interest in America would ever admit to, whether it was Time, Inc. or Eastman Kodak-regardless of how strong the evidence of their involvement is. Sadly, therefore, the true legacy of the Zavada report is not the certainty and clarity that was intended when the ARRB asked for a study of the film's authenticity. Instead, its legacy is doubt. [3] Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1272-1277). There is a plausible source for the information about Dino Brugioni's briefing board session that Zavada revealed to Harrison Livingstone in 2004 which dovetails and addresses a complaint you have expressed in this thread several times about the public unavailability of Peter Janney's interviews of Dino Brugioni. Brugioni told Janney that after he had retired, in the 1980's, the CIA enlisted him to write a history of the NPIC in which he recounted his briefing board session and encounter with the Zapruder film of 11/23/1963. It was classified at the time of the Janney interview, and apparently remains classified to this day, as it would undoubtedly substantiate the 11/23/1963 first briefing board session that Zapruder film authenticity apologists like David Wrone and yourself have attempted to conflate with the second briefing board session of 11/24/1963, and also proves that the CIA has withheld information about the event from the Rockefeller Commission, the ARRB, and numerous FOIA requests. It also demonstrates the naivety of Zapruder film authenticity apologists like yourself in believing that the CIA is your friend, and is going to release evidence which documents the agency's nefarious activities involving the Zapruder film. I present that information to you simultaneous with Doug Horne's excerpts of the Peter Janney interviews of Dino Brugioni, as follows:[4] [4] Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1325-1334).

Mr. Cohen: Given that you have clearly been closely following the posts on this thread -- albeit with insubstantial responses of a distinctly cynical and unproductive nature -- and therefore were unlikely to have missed the following highlighted 6/26/1997 Call Report documenting Ben Hunter's amendment to his 6/17/1997 ARRB interview that I posted on 6/17/2024 [https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30511-the-zapruder-film-and-npichawkeyeworks-mysteries/?do=findComment&comment=539260] (stating that he recalled that the Zapruder film was in fact delivered to the CIA's NPIC by the Secret Service for the briefing board session he participated in on the weekend of the assassination), the question of why you have disregarded the significance of this supplemental testimony naturally arises in my mind, and I suspect the same is true for most everybody else here. In case you somehow missed it, this appears to me to be clear corroboration of Homer McMahon's account of the Secret Service delivering the film to NPIC and supervising the briefing board session...

ROLAND ZAVADA FLOATS A SANITIZED VERSION OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM BEING AT CIA HAWKEYEWORKS (ROCHESTER, NEW YORK) TO HARRISON LIVINGSTONE DURING THEIR MEETING OF MAY, 2004: Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (pp. 121-124): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183 Interestingly. Roland Zavada believes that the original film was at Kodak in Rochester shortly the assassination. Whether he actually knows more than he revealed to me during our meeting in May, 2004, I don't know, but he reverses the situation as you can read in the following dialog. A study of his language might also lead one to conclude that he is stating actual knowledge of what happened, but this is not clear to me. Z: The situation is that one of the questions came up that is in the ARRB testimony that a Mr. Smith went to Kodak for the- H: You're talking about the Secret Service man. Z: Whatever it (sic) was. And that was, to the best of my knowledge, after the film had been sent to Washington. If that film being sent to Washington was in 8mm perforated width, and they wanted prints, and they did not know how to handle it on the Model J printer- H: They had to go to Kodak- Z: Kodak had a Model J printer modified so they could print the film which would have been the 5269 photo- H: Kodak already had it modified before November 22nd? Z: Because it was for wedding pictures, or the kid's pictures, or graduation pictures. Kodak provided this as a regular service that you could have gone to the drug store and asked for Kodachrome printing on Kodachrome 8mm film. That was a regular service- H: You mean (still?) prints from a regular film? Z: No, no, no! Movies! We're talking movie film! You've taken a movie of some important event in your life-it has now come back to you and you've projected it and you want a copy-what do you do? You go to your Kodak dealer and he sends it into Kodak; Kodak makes a copy.[18] [18] Note that Kodak Dallas was not equipped to make copies of Double-eight film that they processed, and they had Zapruder take the just-processed film to the Jamieson lab where it could be done. H: You mean in your city? In Rochester? Z: It goes to Rochester. It could be any place in the United States, but it goes to Rochester to be printed, and it goes back to your photo finishing dealer to be given to you. A common service! [His tone is often almost pleading and this is true throughout much of the last exchanges. Maybe from fatigue, to put a polite spin on it.] H: Okay, so this is film that was shot on eight, and not on double eight- Z: Shot on double-eight but then slit to eight because that's the way you looked at it and projected it and you say "now I want a copy, so how do I get a copy that's already in eight?" We send it back to Kodak where they have a modified Model J printer- H: In Rochester? Z: In Rochester, and they print it on 5269. They process it, they slit it to eight and send you two back. One's the copy and one's the original. That's normal practice. H: So what happened with NPIC? Z: They needed a copy and the film was already 8mm, and they did not have the machinery to handle it. It would have gone to Kodak overnight-that it could (sic). We- Kodak provided services to government agencies based upon need. We never discriminated- H: So you think that when the film was already at NPIC, they sent it up to Rochester? Z: And then it came back! It was a situation: went there, came back, and now they had a copy to work with, or copies. They might have made several copies, because Dallas was given a copy then [my emphasis]. Who made the copy for Dallas and what form was it on? I have never seen it, have you? If it was Ektachrome, it was easy for many laboratories. The biggest problem, Harry, in duplicating film at that time-just like at Jamieson: Jamieson's problem-the reason they couldn't take the film there and make a duplicate is he most likely had 5369 film available with perforated 16. So if he would have printed an 8mm film on it, the only thing you could have looked at it on is a 16mm projector with two frames of 8mm showing up on the screen at the same time. He would have had to get 8mm perforated film which probably was a special order. Because most laboratories didn't use that. There was no big need for that, except in audio-visual. Melanson concludes his article in The Third Decade with these remarks: If, as appears to be the case, it was the original of the Z-film that was secretly diverted to the CIA laboratory on November 22, 1963, then the means and the opportunity for sophisticated alteration did, in fact, exist-alteration that even the most expert analysis would have difficulty in detecting. By the 1960s cinematography labs had the technical capacity to insert or delete individual frames of a film, to resize images, to create special effects. But it would take an extraordinary sophistication to do so in a manner that would defy detection-the kind of sophistication that one would expect of CIA photo experts. Between Zapruder and the Secret Service, they had possession of all three of the Dallas-made copies for nearly twenty-four hours. With the original at NPIC and with three copies made there, it is possible that if the film was doctored, the three NPIC copies of the doctored film were substituted for the three Dallas-made copies. "Or that all the copies went to NPIC" and the switch was made there .... It is possible that the film of the century is more intimately related to the crime of the century than we ever knew-not because it recorded the crime of the century, as we have assumed, but because it was itself an instrument of conspiracy.

DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF THE FALSIFICATION OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM: PART ONE -- THE ZAPRUDER FILM 0183 REGISTRATION PROOF OF ALTERATION Graphic credit: David Healey -- https://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy4 What follows are excerpts from notable authors on the subject of the Zapruder film concerning the 0183-registration number that was assigned to and perforated directly into the camera-original Zapruder film when the film was processed at the Eastland Kodak Company in Dallas on November 22, 1963. I begin with excerpts from establishment historians and Zapruder film authenticity apologists who tow the standard government line and attempt to whitewash indications of photographic falsification either because they seek to maintain their station and privileged status in American society and the post JFKA national security state, or have themselves been beguiled by the government’s propaganda regarding the matter or a combination of both. Additionally, I present the existing evidence regarding the processing of the film and the assignment of registration number 0183, and highlight the indications within that evidence that Eastland Kodak Company personnel did not in fact depart from the standard and customary practice of perforating the registration number at the end of the film footage [See in particular, the 11/22/1963 Affidavits of Phil Chamberlain and Frank Sloan, below] and instead strangely and atypically placed the number at the end of side A of the film, adjacent to the family scenes. Furthermore, preliminary attention is paid to the fact that the registration numbers 0185 and 0187 are not perforated into first day SS copy no. 1 and the first day LMH copy: Of the three purported first day copies, only Secret Service copy no. 2 is imprinted with registration number 0186, and this is further compounded by the fact that the number 0186 is perforated at the beginning of the assassination sequence of side B of SS copy no. 2, rather than at the end of side B, which represents yet another departure from Kodak’s then standard and customary practice of placing the registration number at the end of the film [as attested to in the above-referenced 11/22/1962 affidavits]. I will present more information about this aspect of the problems with the purported ‘first day copies’ of the Zapruder film in Part Two of this post which will transition from the issues associated with the 0183-registration number into the numerous problems associated with the three purported first-generation copies, and their respective chains of custody. ____________ • After the original was removed from the camera, perforation identified 0183 and processed without removing the integral leader and trailer, Messrs. Chamberlain and Blair, with Mr. Zapruder present, viewed the film (with a 16mm inspection projector[2]) for processing quality. [2] The inspection 16mm inspection projector was designed to operate at a higher than normal frame rate to evaluate for possible processing induced artifacts. Zavada, Roland J., and J. K. Toner. Study 3, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Washington, District of Columbia, p. 2, Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence. https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n67/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n67/mode/2up ____________ A Dallas police car took Zapruder, Schwartz and Sorrels to the Kodak lab near Love Field. It was now getting close to 3:00 PM. Phil Chamberlain met them upon their arrival at the lab. Dick Blair ran off the remaining film onto the camera take-up spool. The film was taken out of the camera and given to Kathryn Kirby. She perforated it with the number 0183 and passed it on to J. Kenny Anderson for processing. Zapruder remained in the lab with his film while all this was being done. Thompson, Josiah. (n.d.). Proof that the Zapruder Film is Authentic (par. 15). https://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/thompson-proof.html ____________ Zapruder, Sorrels, Schwartz and McCormick arrived from downtown Dallas and were met in the building lobby by Chamberlain. Following a brief discussion about the potential significance of Zapruder's film, Customer Service Representative Richard T. Blair was given the movie camera. He ran off the remainder of the second side of the unexposed film and then removed the spool from the camera. The spool included 33 feet of 16mm-wide perforated 8mm film. As a pre-processing step, Kathryn Kirby, whose responsibility was customer special handling projects, is believed to be the person who took the spool and gave the film a perforation identification number punched vertically on the film itself. The Zapruder film perforation number was [0183.] the digits made up of 9 or more, tiny, round, punched holes. Such numbering was standard customer identification practice used as a control system to match the customer order with the actual film. Normal processing would have removed four feet of thread-up leader film from each end of the spool, though in this case the extra blank film waste was not cut off during the special handling. The perforation location is also typically cut in at what, when the film is split and spliced, becomes the tail end of the film. In this case, a non-typical placement of the perforation number was cut in contiguously with the beginning of the scenes Zapruder had taken of his family.[43] [43] Zavada, "Study 1." Ibid., p. 5, 15, 18. The camera-original film now at the National Archives does not include the first 25 feet of film containing family scenes. The first-generation Secret Service copies of these scenes are extant, however, and do show the (0183) perforation number printed-through onto these two copies. Trask, Richard. B. (2005). National nightmare on six feet of film : Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (p. 106, par. 2) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/nationalnightmar0000tras/page/106/mode/2up ____________ The Kodak personnel walked the film through the processing. In the initial step Blair removed the exposed film by taking Zapruder and his camera into a darkroom, where he finished running the unexposed portion of the film through to the end of the strip, opened the camera, and removed the spool.[13] [13] Blair to Zavada, 1997, e-mail section, in Zavada, Analysis of Selected.; notes of telephone conversation, June 20, 1997, with Dick Blair, in Roland Zavada, Compendious Notes of Telephone Conversation with Dallas Processing Laboratory Personnel," Zavada, Analysis of Selected, study I attachments. Next Blair handed the film over to Kathryn Kirby of the Customer Special Handling Department. She put the film in the processing identification edge printer and on the strip end punched in the perforation identification number 0183.[14] [14] Notes of telephone conversation, August 10, 1997, with Tom Nulty, in Zavada, Analysis of Selected. Then Blair delivered the film to Bobby Davis and Bob Willie at machine number 2.[15] [15] Blair notes. Previously, in response to the telephone call from WFAA-TV studios, the machine had been cleared and certified by John "Kenny" Anderson, production foreman, and dedicated to processing only the incoming Zapruder film.[16] [16] Ibid. Before starting the development sequence, Davis loaded the machine with new leader to guard against splits and splices.[17] [17]. Ibid. Wrone, David R. (2003). The Zapruder film: reframing JFK’s assassination (p. 21, para. 3): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/zapruderfilmrefr0000wron/page/20/mode/2up?q=0183 ____________ We know that, minutes after the assassination took place, Zapruder returned to his office, the film still in his camera. We also know that he subsequently took the film to the Kodak processing plant in Dallas, were he had it developed. The film had the identification number “0183” perforated onto the blank “leader” at the start of the film. Scalley, Chris. (2011, July). The Zapruder Film Chronology (p. 3, para. 5). Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146539#relPageId=7 Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 15, Issue 2 ____________ -An affidavit executed by Abraham Zapruder concerning the developing of the original film[3] states that "the end of the processed film and carrier strip, inside the carton, were perforated by Eastman Kodak Company at the time of processing with the following identification number: 0183." Repeated examination has confirmed that this punched number is not present on the film designated as the original Zapruder film. It's absence, however, does not appear significant, because careful examination of the two Secret Service copies (onto which this unique number "0183" was photographically printed during the copying process) reveals that the photographically printed number "0183" appears on these copies contiguous with the beginning of the "home movie" (specifically, immediately prior to the "woman in blue" inside a house), not with the assassination sequence; since the "home movie" is not present on the same reel as the original film, one would therefore not expect to find this punched number contiguous with the assassination sequence on the original film. [3] The complete set of affidavits (all dated November 22, 1963) prepared by Abraham Zapruder regarding the developing of his original film by Kodak in Dallas, the exposure of three first-generation copies at the Jamieson Film Co. in Dallas, and the subsequent developing of those three copies back at the Dallas Kodak laboratory, are all provided here as attachment one. A letter to C. D. Jackson, publisher of Life magazine, prepared by Abraham Zapruder on November 25, 1963, explains the sequence in which the original and copies were developed, and complements the affidavits; it is provided here as attachment two. Horne, Douglas P. (April 9,1997). Memorandum regarding Examination of Zapruder Film Original and Selected Copies at the National Archives (p. 2, para. 1). In https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1.pdf. Assassination Records Review Board. https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1.pdf Attachment 1 of Memorandum, affidavits supplied with Zapruder letter to Jackson. Affadavits in this Attachment: Kodak processing and numbering of KII 8mm film as 0183, affidavit signed by Phillip Chamberlain; printing of Zapruder 8mm KII film by the JAMIESON film company, affidavit signed by Frank Sloan; processing and numbering of Zapruder Kodachrome II prints as 0185, 0186 & 0187, Kodak affidavits signed by Tom Nulty. https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1a.pdf ____________ The Punched Number "0183," While Not Now Attached to the Extant Film, Has Been Photographically Printed on Leader Attached to All Three (3) 'First Generation' Copies That Exist Today It was standard practice by Kodak in 1963 to physically punch a unique customer identification number in the leader of all home movies it developed during processing. The affidavit dated November 22, 1963, signed by Production Supervisor Phil Chamberlain of the Kodak plant in Dallas, states: "...the end of the processed film and carrier strip, inside the carton, were [sic] perforated by Eastman Kodak Company at the time of processing with the following·identification number: 0183...". There is no punched identification number attached to the extant film today. However, as I noted in my ARRB memo of April 9, 1997, the punched number 0183-presumably, from the original film-was photographically printed onto the two Secret Service copies; and as Rollie Zavada noted on page 12 of his Addendum, the same number, 0183, was likewise found to have been photographically printed onto the LMH Company 'first generation' copy. (See Figure 1-2 on page 5 of Study l; Figure 3-1 on page 9 of Study 3; Figure A2 on page 12 of Zavada's Addendum; and page 138 of Livingstone.) While this initially implied that these copies derived from the original film, it is not proof of that, for the location in which the photographically printed number 0183 is found on the 'first generation' copies is not where that number should have been punched into the camera original film, per standard practice. (This discrepancy will be discussed in detail in the next subsection.) Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1250-1251). Kodak processing and numbering of KII 8mm film as 0183, affidavit signed by Phillip Chamberlain https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1a.pdf ____________ The following new information derives from an ARRB memorandum (dated 9 April 1997) by Douglas Horne-and also from observations made at the National Archives by Harry Livingstone and Doug Mizzer. In the chain-of- custody affidavits that were signed in Dallas after the assassination, a Kodak laboratory official identified the out-of-camera film as perforated by the number 0183 (which was placed at the time of development). Unfortunately, the exact site of this perforation on the film was not identified in the affidavit. The extant film (i.e., the purported original film currently in the National Archives) does not contain any perforated number. But since this number 0183 was photographically copied (or printed) onto Secret Service (SS) copies # 1 and 2 after the home movie segment, this seemed to imply that 0183 originally was punched only after the home movie segment. If true, then the absence of 0183 from the extant film (which shows only the motorcade) would be expected. According to Zavada, standard Kodak practice was to punch this processing number after the last image on the second side. If this practice had been followed with the Zapruder film, then a 0183 should have appeared after the motorcade side. None of the remaining numbers (the image of 0183, the punched 0186) coincide with this practice. A review of the intact original home movie side might prove enlightening; unfortunately, it remains un-located. Mantik, David. (2000). The Zapruder film controversy (p. 27). www.academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/69989816/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy ____________ B. Analysis of the Processing Identification Found on the Zapruder Original 8mm Film and the First Generation Copies Zapruder "Out-of-Camera" Original Film Perforated Number: According to the affidavit signed by P. M. Chamberlain, Jr. of the Kodak Dallas Processing Laboratory16, the Zapruder 8mm original film was identified during pre-processing with a number "0183" perforated vertically within the 8mm width of the film as a part of a company customer identification/control system to match the processing request (or order) to the film. As noted above, this perforated identification is typically located at the customer "tails end following the final usable scene so that it winds-up at the core of the return reel. Because "special handling" was involved, and the integral camera thread-up leader and trailer were not removed prior to processing, the handling of Zapruder's film differed from standard practice. In our examination of the motorcade scenes of the Zapruder "Out-of-Camera" Original (camera roll side two), the perforated identification of (0183) was not seen, but should have been present at the end of the remaining blank-unexposed balance of side two if standard handling practice had been followed. We do confirm the Zapruder "Out-of-Camera" Original was identified "0183" by noting the identification present as "printed through" onto both first generation Secret Service copies made by the JAMIESON film company and located adjacent to the family scenes. (See Previous Figure 1-2) The special handling of the film at the Dallas Laboratory did allow a non-typical placement of the perforated identification. As noted earlier, the family scenes, camera roll side one, was reported returned to the Zapruder family. Whether or not the original perforated identification section is affixed is therefore unknown to us. Zavada, Roland J., and J. K. Toner. Study 1, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Washington, District of Columbia, p. 19, Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence. https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n37/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n37/mode/2up ____________ Doug Mizzer and I were convinced that the number (0183) on the alleged camera original had been punched at the tail end of the "Home Movie" (at its end, the tail of Side A) and was in the wrong place, according to Zavada's statements and diagram (Figure 1-1 of his Report). It should have been at the end of the Motorcade segment. Why were we so sure? Because SS #1 & 2 had (I83) actually on the end of the Home Movie segment after the "Woman in the House" scene fades out-with no intervening splices. The next day the above letter arrived from Zavada confirming this: Typical practice is described on page 18 of Study 1. The roll as received for processing has side A heads out and side B tails out. The three or so feet of integral leader is removed and the film processing perforation is placed on the tails of side B, which winds onto the core of the return reel. The Zapruder original and prints received special handling-similar to customer practice [author's emphasis]. But! The typical integral leader and trailer was not removed and perforated number is on the tail of side A [i.e., the Home Movie] indicating rewinding prior to processing identification placement. (It was possible, as it was placed on a core rather than using the camera spool, for processing machine feed.[402] [402] Zavada letter to the author, 10 May 1999, Home, ARRB 16 (created 17 June) 1997. I don't grasp how "special handling" is "similar to customer practice," as he writes above, but this seems to follow a pattern of double talk on many issues. Zavada had more to say about the problem in his colossal letter of 27 June 2004, when I asked him: H: So if the perforated I.D. had to be cut off before copying, but they did not cut off the manufacturer's product information, how can you reconcile these conflicts? Z: The perforated I.D. did not have to be-and was not-removed before copying. There are no conflicts! The laboratory applied number 0I83 was retained as it occupied only about 5 mm width on one 8mm side of the film and we know it printed through onto the KIIA rolls provided the same-day copies. The manufacturer's product number is centered, about 7+mm in height and may or may not have been a handling factor. The few inches were probably not removed by Jamieson. I don't think we know. Printers handle film very gently and pose little problem even with damaged originals. The removal of perforated manufacturer's numbers becomes a significant factor in the long runs with variable tensions through processing machines-hence SOP for the processing lab is to remove them-as was done with the original and subsequently with the three prints before splicing into processing makeup rolls. Too many things in all of this are not according to either the rules, or practice. To make it worse, the employee, Mrs. Kathryn Kirby, who handled the number punching of the film, is deceased. Zavada wrote me: "We don't know which perforator was used, an older one at the head-end of the processing machine, or a newer one in the pre-process make-up roll room. We do know that both perforators perform the same function."[403] [403] Zavada letter to the author, 10 May 1999. Zavada is speaking of the two different styles of perforators, one more recent that resulted from faster film processing machines and required a differently placed device. The assassination sequence must have been at the beginning after the two sides were split and spliced together, because the action ("time") is going from left to right. The Home Movie section follows and has to be going from left to right (we assume) and this is followed by (0I83) which is in the identical position on SS #2 when both Home Movies are aligned (see my map). In other words, the Home Movie was never spliced on at the beginning. and somebody made a new "original" and punched (OI83] at the end of the Home Movie, which, under this scenario was always at the end of the film, contrary to Kodak's usual practice, because they knew that the interesting part was not at the beginning. Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (pp. 368-369): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183 ____________ The Unique, Punched Identification Numbers Found on Today's 'First Generation' Copies Are in Atypical Locations That Are Inconsistent With Standard Kodak Practice In his report submitted to the ARRB, Rollie Zavada explained that the unique, punched, 4-digit customer identification number affixed to the film leader was normally placed in the fogged film leader at the end of the movie shot on side B of the 16 mm wide, unslit roll of double 8 mm movie film. The number was normally punched into the leader before the developing of the film. In Zapruder's case, his family scenes were shot on side A of his roll of Kodachrome II film, and the assassination film was shot on side B, where the number should have appeared at the end of the reel. After Zapruder reported to the Kodak plant, Zavada wrote on page 26 of Study 1 that: • "When A. Zapruder arrived at the laboratory, Phil [Chamberlain] met him and Dick Blair assisted by running off the remaining unexposed portion of side 2 [i.e., side B] of the film in preparation for processing." • "The film was given to Kathryn Kirby (now deceased), whose role was to provide service for films requiring special handling. Perforation identification (No. 0183) was most likely done at this time and then the film was given to the Production Foreman-J. Kenny Anderson for processing." [emphasis in original] Zavada published a beautiful diagram as Figure 1-11 on page 21 of Study 1 which graphically explains exactly where the punched number should have been affixed on a typical double 8 mm film-at the end of side B. (See page 107 of Trask, and page 362 of Livingstone for a reproduction of the same diagram from Zavada's report.) This diagram is also quite useful in understanding exactly what is meant by an 'unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 mm film.' The diagram portrays a reel of unslit film as it would appear after being exposed in the camera and after having the perforated identification number punched into it, just after developing in the laboratory. https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n41/mode/2up Unfortunately, for those wishing to believe that the Zapruder film is an authentic, unaltered film, not only is the original punched number 0183 missing from the extant film in the National Archives, but on all three 'first generation' copies where it was photographically copied when those films were duplicated, it appears in the wrong place. Instead of appearing at the tail end of the assassination movie on side B of Zapruder's film reel, it has been photographically copied onto the three duplicates in the fogged (i.e., clear) leader at one end of the Zapruder family scenes, at the end of the home movie near the 'lady in blue, instead of at the end of the motorcade sequence. In fact, there currently is NO 'END' to the assassination film as we would normally describe such a thing, for if the reader checks the film map I drew in 1997 of the extant Zapruder film (the presumed 'original') which is appended to my April 9, 1997 ARRB film memo, you will note that the assassination sequence of images is on an unbroken section of film only 8 feet, 10 inches long -- of which the motorcade sequence is 6 feet three inches long, followed without a break by a short section of black film only 2 feet 7 inches long. At the end of this 8' 10" segment is a physical splice; this is followed by 19 feet, 3 inches of mostly black (unexposed) film, which fades to clear; another physical splice follows; and is then followed by a section of black film 6 feet, 2 inches in length; then another physical splice; then another section of black film 5 feet, 8 inches in length; then another splice; then light struck leader that is 6 feet, 9 inches in length. I will make sense out of all this below. A normal roll of double 8 mm film is 16 mm wide when purchased, and contains 25 feet of useable film in the center of the reel, with about 4 feet (or slightly less) of extra film (to be used for threading up the film in the operator's camera) at both ends of the 25 feet of useable film, for a total of about 33 feet of unslit, 16 mm wide film in a new roll of 'double 8' film. If a film were developed and then slit, each side of the reel (the A side and the B side) should be about 33 feet long (at a maximum) before they are spliced together to form one continuous 8 mm film. Much of the leader at the two ends of the 33 foot long reel of 16 mm film was often cut away during processing and discarded before the identification number was affixed, but this was not done with the Zapruder film at the Kodak plant in Dallas; because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, the lab technicians decided that day not to cut off any of the leader. The motorcade sequence of the film alone (side B should have been a maximum of 33 feet long (if no threadup leader had been cut off), and the unique punched number '0183' should have been affixed to the threadup leader near the end of the 33 long strip of film, well after the end of the motorcade sequence. The first physical splice on the extant film in the Archives appears 8 feet, 10 inches after the beginning of the 14.5 frames showing the Hesters and Marilyn Sitzman standing near the pergola in between the Book Depository and the Grassy Knoll. The second physical splice appears after a 19 feet, 3 inch section of mostly black (unexposed) film, which faded to clear (or light fogged) film at the end of the 19 feet, 3 inches. The sum of those two lengths is one inch over 28 feet in length, leading me to conclude that the two additional lengths of black film spliced on to the extant film cannot possibly have come from the camera original film, since the previous long stretch of film had faded to clear, meaning it was light fogged (as one would expect for film near the end of the roll). When one considers that the Secret Service copies reveal that the full pre-motorcade test shots on side B consisted of a total of about 177 frames (about 60 frames of a green chair and about 117 frames of the Hesters and Sitzman near the pergola), then the physical splice in the clear (fogged) film at the end of the 19 foot, 3 inch segment truly was near the extreme end of the side B footage-providing the 19 foot, 3 inch segment really is from the camera original film. Now consider this: from the standpoint of length alone -- assuming for a moment that the extant film being discussed here is indeed the original and is not an altered film -- the original punched number of 0183 must have been very near the place where the clear (fogged) film at the end of the 19 foot strip was cut and a splice affixed. This means that if the number 0183 had been cut off of the tail end of side B, and if it had later been affixed to any other portion of the film (such as the family scenes), that it must have been attached with a physical splice. Such a physical splice would have printed through photographically onto any first generation copy subsequently made after the number was spliced on. However, a careful examination of the three 'first generation copies' in existence today does not reveal any such photocopied splice in association with the printed through number 0183.[18] [18] lt is time here for a 'mea culpa' on my part. In my original film map of Secret Service copy no.l, I incorrectly indicated that a photographic splice was present on this duplicate film in-between the number 0183 and the 'woman in blue' in the home movie. Realizing the significance of this find-that it implied crude, unprofessional tampering to attempt to make Secret Service copy 1 appear to have been copied from the original film, I went back to the Archives to double check this, and to my chagrin, there was no photographically copied splice in this location. I went back to the ARRB offices and corrected my master copy of this film map. Unfortunately for the research community, the incorrect original version of this one film map, attached to my April 9, 1997 film memo, found its way into the Zavada report, and has subsequently misled more than one researcher. I want to openly state here and now that there is no conspiracy on the part of the Archives to alter something I thought I saw in a film I examined; I simply screwed up, and made a mistake. I wish to apologize here, publicly, for any confusion caused when this error in this one film map made its way into Zavada's Appendix. Mea Culpa. We can therefore conclude: If (and I repeat if) the punched number 0183 mentioned in the Kodak affidavit dated November 22, 1963 was applied in the correct position at the end of side B on the day of the assassination, then the presence of a photographically copied 0183 on all three 'first generation' copies, contiguous with the Zapruder family scenes, constitutes proof that someone in another film lab (engaged in forgery of the Zapruder film) punched the number 0183 in the wrong location after a new unslit 'original' film was created. Restated, if the number 0183 was present on the 'original' film adjacent to the family scenes on Side A of the original film reel (as the 3 'first generation' copies prove that it was), then that 'original' film must have been a forgery -- a new 'original' created at another laboratory, in which those handling and developing their new creation screwed up and punched the Dallas identification number in the wrong location. All that is necessary for one to accept this additional dispositive evidence about the provenance of the Zapruder film is for one to believe that the technicians in Dallas would not have departed from normal practice and convention on the day of the assassination. Naturally, Rollie Zavada, whose strong bias was in favor of the film's authenticity, decided that the Kodak technicians in Dallas obviously did depart (for reasons unknown) from normal practice on the day of the assassination. On page 18 of Study I, he provided this long speculative explanation: According to the affidavit signed by P. M. Chamberlain, Jr. of the Kodak Dallas Processing Laboratory, the Zapruder 8 mm original film was identified during pre-processing with a number '0183' perforated vertically within the 8 mm width of the film as a part of a company customer identification/control system to match the processing request (or order) to the film. As noted above, this perforated identification is typically located at the customer 'tails end' following the final useable scene so that it winds-up at the core of the return reel. Because 'special handling' was involved, and the integral camera thread-up leader and trailer were not removed prior to processing, the handling of Zapruder's film differed from standard practice. In our examination of the motorcade scenes of the Zapruder 'Out-of-Camera' Original [note the overwhelming bias here and the pre-determined conclusion that the Archives film was authentic] (camera roll side two), the perforated identification of 0183 was not seen, but should have been present at the end of the remaining blank-unexposed balance of side two if standard handling practice had been followed. We do confirm the Zapruder 'Out-of­ Camera' Original [strong bias and pre-determined conclusion again] was identified '0183' by noting the identification present as 'printed through' onto both first generation Secret Service copies made by the Jamieson film company [more bias and another pre-determined conclusion] and located adjacent to the family scenes. The special handling of the film at the Dallas laboratory did allow a non-typical placement of the perforated identification. As noted earlier, the family scenes, camera roll side one, was reported returned to the Zapruder family. Whether or not the original perforated identification section is affixed is therefore unknown to us. [emphasis in original] Since the person who presumably perforated the identification number on the camera original film on November 22, 1963-Kathryn Kirby-is now deceased, this issue cannot be definitively resolved. Without definitive resolution it is impossible to know whether to accept Rollie Zavada's benign explanation of "special handling" and "non-typical placement," or whether to view the absence of the number 0183 on the extant film in the Archives, and its strange, atypical placement (as printed through onto the 'first generation' copies) as evidence of tampering-the forgery of a new 'original.' But the perforated identification number problem will simply not go away -- for the only original perforated customer identification number found on any of the Zapruder films extant today is the punched number 0186, found on Secret Service copy no. 2, and it is also found in a non-typical location inconsistent with normal Kodak laboratory practice. The punched number 0186 (see Figure 1-7 on page 11 of Study 1 of the Zavada report) is found on Secret Service copy no. 2 at the beginning of the motorcade sequence (preceding the Dealey Plaza test frames). While the number itself, 0186, is in agreement with one of the Kodak affidavits for a number assigned to one of the 'first day copies,' its location is not only atypical (in that it is located at the heads end of side B, instead of at the tails end of side B as was normal practice), but its location is also inconsistent with the placement of the punched number '0183' printed through onto all three 'first generation' copies of the family scenes, which was adjacent to the scenes of 'the woman in blue,' meaning that on these films it is either at the heads or tails end of side A. Are we to believe that both the true camera original film and the true 'first day copies' not only received "atypical special handling" in regard to where the identification number was punched, but that it was placed in a different location on the original than it was on the 'first day copies' by personnel in the same laboratory? Nonsense. While the 'perforated number problem' cannot be definitively resolved today, it does not exactly inspire confidence about the supposed authenticity of the purportedly 'original' extant film and the purported 'first generation' copies that have been so closely scrutinized. To my knowledge, Rollie Zavada made no written comments about the atypical location of the punched number 0186 on Secret Service copy no. 2. I believe he was so overjoyed to find just one of the four punched numbers listed in the affidavit trail, that he was not inclined to question where it was located on the film. If someone questioned him about it today, I am sure his answer would be: "The films all received special handling," which avoids the real question, which is: "Even though the Zapruder original and the three dupes undoubtedly received special handling, out of respect for the importance of the subject matter, why in the world would anyone at the Kodak plant in Dallas deviate from the normal procedure pertaining to where the customer identification number was placed on the film?" This is a question that Rollie Zavada dared not address, for there is no logical answer to the question. In my view, the missing punched number 0183 which should be attached to the tails end of the extant film, and the atypical (and inconsistent) placement of the printed through 0183 and the punched 0186 in the 'first generation' copies, together suggest careless handling by the film's forgers at the CIA's "Hawkeye Plant" at Rochester, on Sunday, November 24, 1963. It cannot be doubted that a new 'original' was created at the "Hawkeye Plant" if Homer McMahon was correct about making enlargements from a 16 mm wide, unslit "original” Zapruder film Sunday evening at NPIC, following Dino Brugioni's processing of the true original, slit 8 mm Zapruder film on Saturday evening at NPIC, the previous night. If Brugioni handled the true camera original, 8 mm slit Zapruder film on Saturday night (which is consistent with the reports at Kodak that the original film was slit and then viewed as an 8 mm film in Dallas after the Jamieson dupes were developed successfully), and if Homer McMahon handled an unslit, 16 mm wide 'original' Zapruder film the next evening, then by definition the second film processed at NPIC, on Sunday night, had to be a forgery created at Rochester. A film cannot change overnight from a slit condition, where it is projected in an 8 mm projector, to an unslit condition, in which it is suddenly 16 mm wide again, contains opposing image strips, and is projected using an installed 16 mm projector in a briefing room. To the skeptic who says: 'Why would forgers be so careless with where they placed the punched identification numbers?' I say this: 'Why do any criminals leave clues after they commit a crime?' The obvious answer is: 'Because everyone makes mistakes,' and just as in the case of the medical coverup at Bethesda, numerous mistakes were made by the forgers at the "Hawkeye Plant," who were undoubtedly more concerned with image content issues and with edge print issues than they were with establishing the future provenance of the film through examination of punched identification numbers. (Time was very limited for the forgers.) Like all criminals, the forgers made mistakes, and like all forgeries, this one -- of the Zapruder film -- was detectable, and indeed, has now been detected. There are too many anomalies with the processing of the Zapruder film alone, for a reasonable person to subscribe to a benign explanation for all of them. Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1272-1277). ____________ 11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR P.M. CHAMBERLAIN, JR., SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1a.pdf ____________ 11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF JAMIESON FILM COMPANY LABORATORY MANAGER FRANK R. SLOAN SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1a.pdf ____________ 6/28/1997 NOTATION OF ROLAND ZAVADA OF HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH FORMER EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PROCESSING FOREMAN TOM NULTY WHO TOLD ZAVADA THAT IT WAS HIS RECOLLECTION THAT THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM "RECEIVED HANDLING SIMILAR TO CUSTOMER FILMS" ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION, THUS PLACING IN QUESTION ZAVADA'S THEORY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED ONTO THE END OF THE HOME MOVIE SEQUENCE ( SIDE A ) RATHER THAN THE END OF THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE ( SIDE B ), THEREBY DEPARTING FROM KODAK'S STANDARD AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, BECAUSE THE FILM WAS "SPECIALLY" PROCESSED. THUS AND THEREFORE, WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EVIDENCE ABOVE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-14.pdf

MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm "...PAGE 2: ...- [mortician Tom Robinson] said he saw the brain removed from President Kennedy's body, and that a large percentage of it was gone "in the back" from the "medulla," and that the portion of the brain that was missing was about the size of a closed fist. He described the condition of the brain in this area as the consistency of "soup." He said that the brain was "not cut up" at the autopsy.... ...-Visible damage to skull caused by the bullet of bullets (as opposed to damage caused by the pathologists): Robinson described 3 locations of wounds: -he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur... ...-he described a "blow-out" which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President's head, which he believed to be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President, and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull); -he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that the wound in the back of the President's head was an entry wound occurring from a bullet fired from behind, based upon conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President's head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)..." "...REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN: ROBINSON DREW DOTTED LINES ON THE DRAWING HE EXECUTED OF THE POSTERIOR SKULL WHICH SHOWS THE WOUND BETWEEN THE EARS. WHEN ASKED BY ARRB STAFF WHAT THE DOTTED... PAGE 3: "...LINES REPRESENTED, HE SAID "SAW CUTS." HE EXPLAINED THAT SOME SAWING WAS DONE TO REMOVE SOME BONE BEFORE THE BRAIN COULD BE REMOVED, AND THEN WENT ON TO DESCRIBE WHAT IS A NORMAL CRANIOTOMY PROCEDURE, SAYING THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED ON JFK. HE SEEMED TO REMEMBER THE USE OF A SAW, AND THE SCALP BEING REFLECTED FORWARD (emphasis in this paragraph not in original)..." "...FOX AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS: After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to... PAGE 5: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0005a.htm ...various Fox photos: -Right Superior Profile (corresponding to B & W #s 5 and 6); He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo's poor quality. -Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said; "You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing." WHEN ASKED BY ARRB WHERE THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS IN RELATION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH, ROBINSON RESPONDED BY PLACING HIS FINGERS IN A CIRCLE JUST ABOVE THE WHITE SPOT IN THE HAIRLINE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AND SAID "THE HOLE WAS RIGHT HERE, WHERE I SAID IT WAS IN MY DRAWING, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THIS PHOTO." (emphasis not in original) -Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...." ______________ FBI Report "Surgery to the Head" - Nurse Audrey Bell - Wound 5 Times Larger than in Dallas -- Nova ______________ Bethesda Tech Paul O'Connor Questions if a Craniotomy was Performed at Parkland in Best Evidence Video ______________ James Jenkins and Dr. Michael Chesser discuss JFK's brain and Humes saying "it fell out into my hand" Former Bethesda Autopsy Tech James Jenkins discussing condition of JFK's brain with Dr. Michael Chesser, including Humes saying "it fell out into my hand." Excerpt from "A Meeting Of The Minds" consisting of Dr. Mike Chesser, Dr. David Mantik, William Matson Law and James C. Jenkins discussing the JFK Assassination autopsy research. Filmed on location in Dallas, TX. ______________ Bethesda Tech Paul O'Connor -- No Craniotomy at Autopsy -- Brain Gone -- RFK Took Brain in 1965 There is simply no way to get around this... Dr. Humes always insisted that he never had to perform a craniotomy (skull cap removal surgery) to remove the President’s brain. * Humes maintained this lie, under oath, for 33 years --- before the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB. * He also informed Army pathologist Pierre Finck, who arrived late at Bethesda to assist with the autopsy, that “no sawing of the skull was necessary” in order to remove President Kennedy’s brain (per Dr. Finck’s 1965 report to his Commanding Officer, General Blumberg). --------------------------------------------- DR. DAVID MANTIK ON DOUG HORNE'S ACCOUNT OF THE BETHESDA AUTOPSISTS CLANDESTINELY ALTERING JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS WITH A BONE SAW: "...So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R's, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.18 Reed states19 that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole. ⁠ Reed's report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls20 seeing, during restoration, a wound about 1/4º inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O'Donnell, the USIA photographer,21 who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph. ⁠ Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed's experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson22 saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.)... ...Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes25 declared that a saw was not important: ⁠ "We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain." ⁠ Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.26... ⁠ ...The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that's because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue ... Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed...." ⁠https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb-part-iv ______________ James Jenkins at 2018 Dallas Conference Tells Dr. David Mantik that a Craniotomy was not Needed Former Bethesda Autopsy Tech James Jenkins tells Dr. Mantik that a standard skull cap (craniotomy) had not been needed due to pre-existing damage (AND INCISIONS) to JFK's skull. The significance is that there is much evidence that a bone saw WAS used to perform a craniotomy at Bethesda, including the testimony of mortician Tom Robinson and Bethesda Autopsy Tech Ed Reed. Excerpt from "A Meeting Of The Minds" consisting of Dr. Mike Chesser, Dr. David Mantik, William Matson Law and James C. Jenkins discussing the JFK Assassination autopsy research. Filmed on location in Dallas, TX. ______________ James Jenkins Tells Dr. Chesser No Bone Saw Used After Chesser Mentions Seeing Saw Cuts in Brain Autopsy Photographs Former Bethesda Autopsy Tech James Jenkins tells Dr. Chesser there was no bone saw used after Chesser mentions seein saw cuts in autopsy photos of brain. The significance is that there is much evidence that a bone saw WAS used to perform a craniotomy, including the testimony of mortician Tom Robinson and Bethesda Autopsy Tech Ed Reed. Excerpt from "A Meeting Of The Minds" consisting of Dr. Mike Chesser, Dr. David Mantik, William Matson Law and James C. Jenkins discussing the JFK Assassination autopsy research. Filmed on location in Dallas, TX. ______________ Dr. Paul Peters on JFK Head Incision -- A Vince Palamara Video Small wound(s) in the front of JFK's head - PART 1.3 https://www.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/comments/jz5sec/small_wounds_in_the_front_of_jfks_head_part_13/ In the photos showing the outside of the scalp, there are some points of interest on the right front of the head. There is a semi-circular dark spot in the forehead, above the right eye. It is not clear whether this could be a piece of hair, a shadow, a bullet hole, or an artifact of photo-manipulation (NSFW): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aVqhS6WrvKXHdJjWfDXadtpCVhlQ5feN ...What made the v-shaped defect? On the 1988 PBS Nova program Who Shot President Kennedy?, Parkland's Dr. Paul Peters was given a chance to look at the official autopsy photos. Peters said afterward "I would have to say, honestly, in looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time [gestures at right front of head], except for that little incision that seems to be coming down in the parietal area. In looking at the photographs, I could envision that an incision might have been made in order to pull the scalp back to expose this bone to make a photograph of that area" (Video, 47:57). From The Third Decade newsletter, Volume 7, Issue 3, March, 1991: [...p. 9, New Evidence of Body Tampering by Joanne Braun] My next step was to write to the Dallas doctors, or to most of them, about fifteen in all, enclosing copies of the High Treason photo of the right side of the head. To Dr. Peters I quoted what he had said on Nova and asked him why he thought the V-shaped irregularity coming down on the right forehead was a surgical incision. In my letters to the other doctors I simply directed their attention to this feature and asked if they had seen it at Parkland. Eight of them replied. Dr. Peters wrote, "It appeared to me, in reviewing the photos, that the incision was very sharp, as if cut by a knife, and I thought at the time that the prosector might have made it to enhance the removal of the brain and contents. I suppose it could have been an extension of the tear from the wound, but I did not notice it at the time we operated on President Kennedy."37 (He also drew an arrow of the photo pointing to the "incision" and noted that he had meant to say it was in the "fronto-parietal" region.) Of the others, five of them, Drs. Curtis, Giesecke, Jones, Salyer and White merely said that they did not see this V-shaped feature at Parkland Hospital.38 Dr. Perry's answer was "there was no incision or indentation" in the right forehead.39 Dr. McClelland replied, "I did not see any such incisions at the time of examination in the Emergency Room at Parkland. I would imagine the incisions shown in the copy of the photograph you sent me were made during the autopsy in Bethesda and do not find them mysterious or any reason for concern."40... ...[...Notes] 37 Letter from Paul C. Peters, M.D., dated August 25, 1989 38 Letter from Don T. Curtis, D.D.S., dated September 8, 1989; undated letters from Drs. Adolph H. Giesecke, Ronald C. Jones, Kenneth E. Salyer and Martin G. White. 39 Letter from Malcolm O. Perry, M.D., dated August 29, 1989. Dr. Perry went on to say, “One of the problems was that there was so much damage to the skull and the scalp that the entire scalp and hair were displaced, sagging slightly forward and to the side, and of course this made it appear that there was something really there. (?) You must recognize that the parietal occipital bone was shattered and parts of it were missing which allowed the scalp to be displaced anteriorly.” 40 Letter from Robert N. McClelland, Md.D., dated August 29, 1989 Parkland Hospital’s Dr. Kenneth Salyer appeared on the 1993 documentary JFK: The Case For Conspiracy. While looking at copies of the autopsy photos, Salyer said: A: This wound is not correct, this isn't right. Q: That is not right? A: No. See, this- this has been doctored right here, this is laying open [gestures to right side of the head]. See, the way- the way you have him, the way they've got him here is- skinflaps have been have been cut, or altered, or pushed up, or changed, and isn't the way he looked. This- He looked- Here, this was wide open with brain open here. This is scalp that's pushed back, and it's all distorted. [...] A: Something's been done right here [points to v-shape], and the way he was on the- on the emergency table is this is open, and this whole area is an open wound. (Video, 1:02:41)... ...So, at least 9 Parkland witnesses indicated they didn’t remember such a defect visible in the right forehead – Drs. Paul Peters, Don Curtis, Adolph Giesecke, Ronald Jones, Kenneth Salyer, Martin White, Malcolm Perry, Robert McClelland, and Nurse Diana Bowron. Was there any explanation from the autopsy pathologists from Bethesda? ______________ PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY DISAVOWS JAGGED THROAT WOUND From Robert Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference: […] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […] From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A: As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...] ______________

We know for a fact that the CIA's NPIC operative, Ben Hunter, during his 6-17-1997 ARRB interview, corroborated Homer McMahon's memory of the presence of a Secret Service Agent at NPIC with the Zapruder film during the weekend of the assassination:

Now is probably a good time to give the loyalists of the stenographers to power the bad news about the Nix film as well... From Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., professor of law emeritus at the University of Georgia: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1207&context=fac_pm Film Altered, Eyewitness Ignored The Best 2014 Book on the JFK Assassination By Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. [T]he Warren Commission’s Report was an interim fabrication that was intended only to satisfy immediate political needs and not to answer the questions of the “who” and “why” of Dallas. . . . [I]t is time we pulled the plug on the Warren Report’s life-support system.—history professor Gerald D. McKnight In recent years numerous books on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy have been published. Most fall into either of two categories. In the first category are the books that praise the Warren Commission or buy into the principal findings of the Warren Report; on the whole, these books are not worth much. In the second category are the books that take the opposite position; and while some of these were written by crackpots or by intelligence agency assets clandestinely seeking to impede the search for truth about the assassination, many others are the result of legitimate research or investigation by serious scholars or writers. The best of the 2014 books, in my opinion, is Gayle Nix Jackson’s Orville Nix: The Missing JFK Assassination Film (Semper Ad Meliora Publishing). Orville Nix, who died in 1972 at the age of 60, became a person of historical interest on Nov. 22, 1963, when, using his 8 mm home movie camera, he caught on silent color film the final phase of the Kennedy assassination. Nix was standing just across the street from Dealey Plaza, near the intersection of Main and Houston Streets and to the left of the presidential limousine as it proceeded down Elm Street at the unusually low speed of 11.2 mph. When Nix began filming, the target vehicle, the slow-moving limousine, now inside what military ambush manuals call a “kill zone,” was already under deadly fire. The portion of the film depicting the assassination and its immediate aftermath is only six and one-half seconds long and consists of 122 frames. Except for the Zapruder film (another 8 mm silent color home movie), the Nix film is our most important motion picture depiction of the assassination. Unlike the Nix film, the Zapruder film was taken from a position to the right of the limousine. Both films were used by the Warren Commission to assist in calculating the time frame of the assassination and fixing the various locations of the limousine on Elm. A high-quality copy of the Nix film is on YouTube. View it. When the portion of the film capturing the assassination begins, we see an already wounded JFK in distress being tended by his wife Jacqueline Kennedy, who is sitting next to him on his left. Then suddenly, when a bullet crashes into his skull, JFK’s head is thrown violently backwards (indicating that, contrary to the Warren Report, the shot did not come from the rear) and for an instant what appears to be a puff of smoke emerges from his head. In her pink suit the stunned First Lady then turns around to her right and rises out of her seat and crawls onto to the limousine’s trunk. Meanwhile, heroic Secret Service agent Clint Hill, racing up from the followup car, climbs with difficulty onto the rear of the trunk, approaches the First Lady and begins gently but firmly to nudge her back into her seat. Here the assassination part of the Nix film ends. Unbelievably, there is nothing in the Warren Report or its 26 volumes of accompanying exhibits indicating that Orville Nix, a known eyewitness to the assassination, ever was questioned about the events of the assassination itself by the Warren Commission staff or by the FBI (which performed most of the Commission’s investigative work, including the interviewing of witnesses). No published Warren Commission documents indicate that Nix was ever asked, for example, about the number and the direction of the shots fired at the limousine. The only documents published by the Warren Commission that concern Nix focus on the characteristics of his camera and how Nix had operated it while filming the assassination. This is strange. Many—but certainly not all—of the assassination witnesses were interviewed by local law enforcement officers or FBI agents and questioned about the assassination, or submitted affidavits on what they observed, or testified before or gave oral depositions to the Warren Commission or its staff. The evidence these witnesses provided as to what they thought had happened is set out in the Warren Report and the 26 volumes of exhibits published by the Commission. Abraham Zapruder, for example, was orally deposed by Warren Commission staff and asked about the assassination. The transcript of his testimony appears in volume 7 of the exhibits published by the Warren Commission. (Typically, the Commission waited until July 22, 1964—eight months after the assassination—to question Zapruder, whose deposition lasted less than 90 minutes and whose testimony takes up only eight printed pages. Zapruder was one of six persons deposed that day by the same Commission staff member, who, in the words of one assassination scholar, was engaging in “assembly-line interrogations.” When shown and asked to comment on various still frames from his famous film, Zapruder complained that “I wish I had an enlarger here for you.” Typically, the staff member, who had not bothered either to bring an enlarger for the benefit of the witness or to advise the witness to bring one, responded by changing the subject and never offered to procure an enlarger to assist this crucial witness.) Orville Nix thought it odd that the FBI did not seem interested in interviewing him about the facts of the assassination. The questions FBI agents asked him related to his act of filming the assassination. One agent did ask him how many shots he heard, and Nix told him at least four, maybe five. When the agent asked Nix which shots hit the president, Nix replied that he wasn’t sure, but he knew that it was the third shot that hit JFK in the head. The agent appears not to have written down what Nix said about the shots. None of Nix’s statements to the FBI about the shooting (as opposed to his filming) ended up in any FBI report. Scandalously, therefore, the 27 volumes published by the Warren Commission reveal nothing about what Orville Nix, an important witness, saw or heard when the assassination took place. Fortunately, however, due to the efforts of New York attorney Mark Lane, one of the earliest critics of the Warren Commission, who conducted a filmed interview of Nix, we now know in his own words exactly what Orville Nix observed in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963. Lane, along with Edward Epstein, the now deceased Sylvia Meagher and Harold Weisberg (also now deceased), is among the most renowned of the first generation of Warren Report critics; by 1967 each had written one or more books questioning the performance of the Warren Commission and challenging the accuracy of the Report. Those books—Epstein’s Inquest (1966), Lane’s Rush to Judgment (1966), Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact (1967) and Weisberg’s Whitewash: The Report on the Warren Report (1965), Whitewash II: The FBI-Secret Service Cover-Up (1966) and Oswald in New Orleans (1967)—are now classics. Lane’s filmed interview of Nix on black and white sound film was in 1966, three years after the assassination and six years before Nix’s death. The Orville Nix interview is on YouTube. Take a look at it. During the interview, Nix tells Lane that at the time the shots were fired he thought they came not from the School Book Depository, which was behind the limousine, but instead from the stockade fence, which was at the top of the grassy knoll and to the right of the limousine. Nix also says that other witnesses—“most everyone”—and even a Secret Service agent friend of his were in agreement at the time that the shots came from the fence. Nix also tells Lane that some frames were missing when his film was returned to him by the FBI. Gayle Nix Jackson, the author of Orville Nix: The Missing JFK Assassination Film, is Orville Nix’s granddaughter. Subtitled The Unflinching True Story of an Ordinary Man Swept Up in an Extraordinary Event, the book includes an abbreviated biography of Orville Nix, who worked for the federal government as an air conditioning repairman, and was born, lived and died in Dallas, TX. A modest, gentlemanly, straightforward man, Nix had many friends, including Forrest Sorrels, the Secret Service Special Agent in Chief of the Dallas office—one of the security officials responsible for the catastrophic decision to route JFK’s motorcade through Dealey Plaza. Even if you don’t read Gale Nix Jackson’s book, you might consider looking, on YouTube, at the two-and-a-half minute video by her daughter (and Orville Nix’s great granddaughter) Taylor Jackson, who discusses the original Nix film, the mystery of its disappearance and the continuing efforts of the Nix family to recover it. The best parts of Gayle Nix Jackson’s book deal with (1) what Orville Nix did and observed in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963, and (2) the original Nix film itself and the various copies made over the years. Here are some of the facts the book presents: ● Like Abraham Zapruder, who also personally watched a president shot in the head, Orville Nix had recurring nightmares the rest of his life. ● Nix heard more than the three shots the Warren Report claimed had been fired. “I heard four or five shots… I heard at least four shots, maybe five.” This of course is what he had previously told the FBI agent who failed to write down what Nix said. ● Although the Warren Report concluded that all the shots were fired from the Book Depository behind the limousine, eyewitness Nix believed the shots “came from that little park area [the grassy knoll to the right of the limousine] in front of the train yards by the Triple Underpass.” This of course is what Nix said in his 1966 interview with Mark Lane. ● Nix delivered his film to the FBI on Dec. 1, 1963. When it was returned to him several days later, he became “convinced that his returned film looked changed from the time he had seen it [when it was first developed].” The film, Nix believed, was “different” after its return by the FBI. Nix said something similar in his 1966 interview with Mark Lane, where he also told Lane that some of the frames in his film had been “ruined.” ● Nix delivered his motion picture camera to the FBI in January 1964. When it was returned to him the following June, it had been taken apart and was in pieces. “[T]he camera of history… the camera that took an important assassination film… [had been] destroyed.” The FBI apologized, repaired the camera and also gave Nix a new one. This satisfied Nix. ● Nix later sold the original film to UPI for a paltry $5,000 and a cowboy hat, but was allowed to retain a copy. The original was to be returned to Nix after 25 years. UPI kept the film inaccessible to the public and never returned it to the Nix family. ● In 1965, UPI took the Nix film for a special optical scan to a secretive, CIA-connected company that manufactured sophisticated reconnaissance cameras for use in spy satellites. ● The original Nix film has probably been destroyed. At any rate, the present location of the original Nix film is unknown. Believing the film may still exist, the Nix family continues to work for its return. ● According to one theory, in 1974 a UPI executive placed the original Nix film in a safety deposit box in a New York City bank. This, it is said, is the last known location of the original film, which, it is claimed, has not been seen since. The building housing the bank, it appears, was later demolished. ● According to a perhaps more likely theory, the original Nix film disappeared in 1978, after it was returned to UPI by the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations. ● A copy of the Nix film was broadcast on television for perhaps the first time in a 1988 British TV documentary, “The Day the Dream Died.” ● The Warren Commission’s copy of the Nix film (which it obtained from the FBI) has been in the National Archives since 1964. Not until 1966 was a researcher (Harold Weisberg) even allowed to see the copy. The Warren Commission’s critics have compiled long lists of examples of the Warren Commission not doing its job. The story of Orville Nix and his film, told by author Jackson, provides us with even more examples of the inadequacies of the government’s investigation of JFK’s assassination. Let’s look at just three. First, the Warren Commission took no steps to ensure the preservation and availability of the original of the second most important film of the assassination, and as a result of that negligence the original has been missing for years and may well have been destroyed. Does this inspire confidence in the investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Second, even though he had witnessed the assassination, filmed part of it and handed his film over to the FBI, Orville Nix, as previously noted, was not asked to testify before the Warren Commission. Furthermore, also as previously noted, neither the Warren Report nor any of the Commission’s published materials tells us anything about what Nix saw or heard in Dealey Plaza. If the government agencies investigating the murder of a president did not think it necessary or appropriate to put on the record a statement of what Nix observed, what faith can we have in such an investigation? Third, it was not the government but a private researcher who interviewed Nix on film, asked him questions about the shots fired and made sure the filmed interview was preserved and made available to the public. Does this alleviate concerns about the adequacy of the official investigation? Orville Nix: The Missing JFK Assassination Film is further proof, half a century after the assassination, that Americans must embrace a very painful truth. That truth is not just that the Warren Commission failed to adequately investigate the murder of a president or that the Warren Report was fundamentally wrong. Rather, the truth that anguishes is that the official government investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a bad-faith investigation, and the Warren Report, the result of that investigation, is, as to its main conclusions, a cunning piece of deception. Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. is a professor emeritus at the University of Georgia, where he taught in the law school for 40 years. This is his 39th published article on the JFK assassination.

David Wrone's book on the subject states that issues of the November 29, 1963 issue of LIFE hit newsstands on Monday, November 25, while Harrison Livingstone's "Hoax of the Century" states that it was Tuesday, November 26th.

With regard to Mr. @Pat Speer's anecdotal story about Mary Moorman, what comes to mind for me is the following excerpt from David Lifton's "Pig on a Leash," describing the control exerted over Mary Moorman and her story by the Sixth Floor Museum (which is, in my opinion, a CIA front) during the filming of a documentary, and I just have to think to myself, "that poor woman": Consider what happened on a recent documentary shoot in Dealey Plaza. Here was an important issue for The Sixth Floor Museum, which controls both the Moorman copyright as well as the Zapruder. Mary Moorman was being interviewed for a documentary to be broadcast on national television. Mary told major media interviewers as recently as a few years ago how she stepped into the street to take President Kennedy's picture and then, after the shots were fired, stepped back on the grass. She was most specific about these two events: the step into the street, the step back onto the grass. Here are here exact words: Moorman: Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend was with me, we were right ready to take the picture. And she's not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did holler for the president, "Mr. President, look this way!" And I'd stepped out off the curb into the street to take the picture. And snapped it immediately. And that evidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the sound. And ... Jones: Now when you heard the sound, did you immediately think, "rifle shot"? Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong. I certainly didn't know what was wrong. The trouble is the Zapruder film shows no such thing. And if this actually happened, then Mary's account is further evidence-just like the car stop-that the film was altered through professional optical editing, where Mary was put up on the grass. But now, some years later, at a time when The Sixth Floor Museum controls Mary's copyright, she is being interviewed by the Museum's Gary Mack. Mack has learned she should not say she stepped into the street, but she still says she stepped forward. And she says so again and again, on each successive take. The problem is: Mary doesn't even do that on the Zapruder film. She just stands there. And Mary apparently remembers something else-how slowly the car was moving. Just the way she told me when I visited her back in November 1971 and she told me that it stopped. Now she simply says it "wasn't going that fast." The film shoot stops. Mack cuts in. HE turns to the cameraman and says, "That's it", indicating the camera should be turned off. Someone says "going that fast". Gary Mack looks down at the grass and fidgets at Mary's blooper. HE turns to Mary and says, "They will or will not use that. That's OK." A senior producer walks over, in a casual manner: "Wasn't going that fast"? he says, mimicking her. Then he continues, "Mary, you're so cute!" The implication is clear. She should be careful about what she says and stick to the script. A later situation -- reminiscent of the coercion of Mary Moorman by the Sixth Floor Museum -- developed during a 2016 presentation by Dealey Plaza witness, Bill Newman, which was being moderated by Sixth Floor Museum curator, Stephen Fagen, who can be seen in the following video intervening to get Newman to change the subject after he (Newman) had begun to tell his story about the Presidential Limousine coming to a complete stop in Dealey Plaza during the assassination (yet another event that is not depicted in the Zapruder film): But getting back to controversy regarding the question of whether the accounts of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill having stepped onto Elm Street for Moorman to shoot Polaroid #5 (when the Zapruder film depicts them at that second standing on the grass), a closely related issue is the question of why the black shoes of both women are depicted in the Zapruder film as being white? For Mr. Cohen, who has presented an article from the old John McAdams (aka "Paul Nolan") propaganda site showcasing the results of an "experiment" that Josiah Thompson characterized as having disproved Mary Moorman's standing in the street story (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/moorman1.htm), I present the following research article from Professor James Fetzer, written as a response to Thompson's article in 2009 (prior to Fetzer's Sandy Hook related problems), which demonstrates that Thompson's article was a smear job that proved nothing, performed in the spirit of the Sixth Floor Museum -- as elucidated above -- in association with the Sixth Floor Museum's Gary Mack: Moorman In The Street Revisited https://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n2/v5n2-moorman-revisited.pdf

Mr. Gram: Your analysis is clearly being hindered by the fact that you are working with fragmentary information. I believe that you will find the following [Pages 1229 through 1243 of Inside the Records Review Board by Douglas Horne] because it contains David Wrone's account of his 2003 interview of Dino Brugioni, a detailed summary of Peter Janney's interviews of Brugioni, and a great deal of information about why Brugioni's 12/23/1963 NPIC briefing board session was entirely separate and distinct from the 12/24/1963 briefing board session of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter. I have in the past searched high and low for the MP3's of the Peter Janney interviews of Dino Brugioni without success. Doug Horne's summary of those interviews appears to be the best that is publicly available: Volume IV, Pages 1229 through 1243 of Inside the Records Review Board by Douglas P. Horne

Based upon the extant Zapruder film headshot footage, it certainly does not appear that there was an explosion of biological debris out of the back of JFK's head, nor do we see in the footage the slightest hint of the skull and brain fragment retrieved from the trunk lid by the First Lady that you reference in the final clause of your comment... But because same is not depicted in the highly questionable extant Zapruder film do we simply disregard the accounts of the long list of witnesses who attested to having seen, and in some cases felt, the rearward flying blood, brain and skull from JFK's occipital-parietal wound that was so well documented minutes later at Parkland Hospital? Perhaps the most intriguing of this list of witnesses is Erwin Schwartz, Abraham Zapruder's business partner, who attested to having seen the biological debris flying backwards and to the left in the camera-original Zapruder film itself when viewed the camera-original Zapruder film multiple times on Friday and Saturday, 11/22/1963 and 11/23/1963, while Schwartz was accompanying Zapruder to have the film developed, and watched it projected multiple times for journalists and investigators. From Noel Twyman's "Bloody Treason": "...When I interviewed Erwin Schwartz, I asked him several questions about what he saw on the film when he first viewed it in its original state at Eastman Kodak. [In a footnote, Twyman made clear that Schwartz was referring to first viewing the film in its 16 mm wide, unslit state at the Kodak plant in Dallas.] ...I also asked him to describe what he saw at the instant of the fatal head shot. His answer was very descriptive. He said he saw Kennedy's head suddenly whip around to the left (counter-clockwise). I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "It went this way." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "Yes." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "No; it was to the left and rear." We went over this several times with him to be certain he was clear on this point. He was very clear. Of course. Schwartz's statement that the blood and brains went back to the rear and left was completely consistent with all of the eyewitnesses who said they saw the rear of Kennedy's head blow out and brain and blood go to the rear. It was also consistent with Dallas motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis's testimony that he was riding to the rear and the left of limousine and was splattered with blood and brains...So here we have testimony from a man who first saw the original Zapruder film (he said he looked- at it at least fifteen times over the weekend)...who...saw the eruption of blood and brains in a direction opposite [to] what we now see on the Zapruder film...." The obvious question is why, given that Schwartz viewed this imagery in the camera-original Zapruder film, do we not see the same thing in the extant "original" Zapruder film today? Of course, such imagery is completely absent from the extant "original" Zapruder film (instead, we see only the morphing trapezoid shaped D-Max black patch with sharp edges that covers the occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head): The fraudulent nature of the morphing trapezoid shaped D-Max black patch with sharp edges that covers the occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head -- perhaps best seen in the following 6K frames from Sidney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's film -- is so obvious it prompted one noted Hollywood expert in post production -- Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio -- to say: "Oh that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe it's such a bad fake." The following additional witness accounts are indicative of the rearward flying biological debris we should be seeing in the Zapruder headshhot sequence directly above, but which has clearly been completely excised from the extant film: __________ "...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..." Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"). __________ "...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..." Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara). "...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...." Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony). __________ "...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..." Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13 __________ "...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...." Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ). __________ "...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET. Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head? Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING. Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly? Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...." Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs __________ "...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...." Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm __________ "...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..." Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329. __________ I therefore respectfully dispute your claim that "the fact that there is not an explosion out the back of the head is not at all probative," and assert that the fact that the extant Zapruder film does not depict the explosion out of the back of the head that was attested to by multiple witnesses is probative as to the question of whether said explosion has been crudely edited out of the film. I certainly concur with your favorable assessment of Milicant Cranor's work concerning the head wound, but would also like to point out that Cranor feels very strongly that the Zapruder film has in fact been altered. She wrote an excellent article on the topic in 2018 as follows: 'JFK ASSASSINATION FILM: PROOF OF TAMPERING?' By Milicent Cranor | 07/12/18 https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/jfk-assassination-film-proof-of-tampering/ And when I sought additional feedback from her on Facebook on 8/17/2021, she broke down the salient point of her article as follows: "When comparing Jackie's position in the two films, please note that in the Nix film, Jackie's right arm is parallel to the trunk, and her hand clearly reaches to the end of it. In the Z film, her right arm is bent, and her right palm is flat on the trunk, not reaching out to Hill. And her distance from the end of the trunk could not possibly be explained by angle of camera." https://www.facebook.com/groups/2232161073506616/posts/4392428030813232/ Agreed, but I think this just supplements the evidence outlined above. The large avulsive wound reported and attested to by all of those witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda had very definite characteristics that did not in any way resemble the trapezoid shaped D-Max black patch with sharp edges that covers the occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head that we see here in Z-317:

And supplementing all of the above about Mary Moorman and Jean Hill repeatedly attesting that they had stepped onto Elm Street just before Moorman took Polaroid #5 are the differences between the same split-second scene as depicted by the Nix film and the Zapruder film. In the Zapruder film it looks like Moorman and Hill are standing on the grass about two feet back from the road, and in the Nix film it looks like Moorman and Hill are standing in the road, on Elm street, just like they both repeatedly said they were over the years following the assassination... POLAROID # 5