Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mantick's Review of Doug Horne's IARRB

Recommended Posts

I understand that there is a review of Doug Horne's IARRB Chapter 14 by David Mantick.

Can someone please post the review here?


Thanks Michael,

I also got it from Ed Tree Frog.

Now how about Costella?


from what I've heard don't expect it (Costella's review) to be a ringing endorsement.... and, to the best of my knowledge it's not published yet....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

If you had bothered to look, you would have seen I had already created a Mantik review thread. But of course . . . And just for the record, his name is "David W. Mantik", not "Mantick". "M"-"a"-"n"-"t"-"i"-"k". There is no "c".

Since Prof. Fetzer and Pat Speer insist on posting about Mantik under Costella's review, I thought I would bring this thread to their attention.


Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had bothered to look, you would have seen I had already created a Mantik review thread. But of course . . . And just for the record, his name is "David W. Mantik", not "Mantick". "M"-"a"-"n"-"t"-"i"-"k". There is no "c".
Since Prof. Fetzer and Pat Speer insist on posting about Mantik under Costella's review, I thought I would bring this thread to their attention.


Start as many threads on Mantik review of Horne you want, just don't post it under Costella's Reivew of Horne, which you have already done twice.

And there were already two threads on Mantik's review of Horne going when you stepped on the Costella tread and started a third thread on Mantik & Horne, so it is you who isn't paying attention.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that there is a review of Doug Horne's IARRB Chapter 14 by David Mantick.

Can someone please post the review here?


I just wanted to thank David Mantik for taking the time to write such a concise and honest review of Volume IV of Doug Horne's IARRB. He touches on all of the right issues and comes to the same basic conclusions that I do. And he even gives Costella his due.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that there is a review of Doug Horne's IARRB Chapter 14 by David Mantick.

Can someone please post the review here?


I just wanted to thank David Mantik for taking the time to write such a concise and honest review of Volume IV of Doug Horne's IARRB. He touches on all of the right issues and comes to the same basic conclusions that I do. And he even gives Costella his due.

Bill Kelly

Mantik devotes much of his review to Chapter 13 and what happened at Bethesda.

Here's some outtakes of the review that deal with Chapter 14 - The Zapruder Film Mystery.

The Zapruder Film Mystery - David Mantik

Based on his relentless defense of the extant film, Josiah Thompson can justifiably claim the title, "High Priest of Z Film." His initial claim derives from his work for LIFE magazine in the 1960s, which led to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967). He claimed (p. 7): "Quite obviously, the Zapruder film contained the nearest thing to absolute truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza." His most recent public paper (2007)52 finalized his claim to the above title. Unfortunately for Thompson, Horne's work has created deep fractures in his purported bedrock, and has pulverized some rockheads into finely ground sand.53

When Thompson wrote his "Bedrock" article he ignored two witnesses54 who had been extensively interviewed by the ARRB (actually by Horne himself) and whose interviews were surely already known to Thompson, who is nothing if not a very bright detective. These witnesses were Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon, employees of the NPIC (a subsidiary of the CIA), who received the original (in their view) film from a Secret Service agent. The latter, in turn, had just couriered it from Rochester, New York, headquarters of Eastman Kodak. Moreover, this agent ("Bill Smith") specifically said that the film had been developed (sic) in Rochester. If that was true, then there must have been a second film, one not shot by Zapruder (his film, after all, had been developed in Dallas), but rather one filmed from a nearly identical site in Dealey Plaza.55

But Horne's next stroke is the mortal blow to the Zapruder film, one beyond even

the skills of a contemporary Parsifal. Horne details Peter Janney's encounters (including

seven interviews) with Dino Brugioni,56 a founder of the NPIC. John McCone, Director

of the CIA, had telephoned the NPIC director, Arthur Lundahl (Brugioni's superior),

asking him to assist the Secret Service in analyzing the original (Zapruder) film.57

Beginning late on Saturday night (November 23), Brugioni viewed an original, 8 mm

film and prepared briefing boards, which were presented to McCone the next morning.

Amazingly, Brugioni stated that neither Ben Hunter nor Captain Sands were at his event.

51 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1208-1212; the NPIC proposed such a frontal shot at frame Z-190. Of course, there is also the article by Paul Mandel (Ibid. at 1202 and LIFE, December 6, 1963) about the Zapruder film: "…the 8 mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed---towards the sniper's nest---just before he clutches it." 52


53 Ironically, a Captain (Pierre) Sands attended the Hunter-McMahon event (see below). The layman should understand that "rockhead" is neither an epithet nor a pejorative for certain types of music lovers. It is merely a geological formation.

54 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1226-1227.

55 John Costella, an Australian Ph.D. physicist with expertise in optics, has offered very compelling physical arguments as to why more than just an original Zapruder film was absolutely necessary to fabricate the extant film. See James Fetzer, editor, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), at 145-238. One researcher has advised me that he has made some progress, but identifying the pertinent photographer(s) remains an open question.

56 Dino Brugioni, Photofakery: the History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation (1999). His recollections of the Cuban missile crisis are documented at 109-110.

57 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1220-1243.


(Brugioni did not recall ever meeting Homer McMahon; he could therefore

not personally report whether or not McMahon was present at Event I on Saturday night.

Of course, since Brugioni was positive that Ben Hunter was absent, and because Hunter

and McMahon were linked by their recall of one another, then McMahon should not have

been present at Brugioni's event.) In a detailed analysis Horne shows convincingly that

two separate events, both highly compartmentalized, occurred on successive nights.

During these recent interviews, when Brugioni finally learned—after 46 years—of two

unrelated events, both at NPIC, he was stunned!

Horne assembles a magnificent table58 that contrasts these two events: the

Saturday night (November 23) event with Brugioni and the Sunday night event

(November 24) with Hunter and McMahon. Horne demonstrates how compartmentalized

these two events were: they differed in attendees, film format, and briefing boards.

Brugioni knew Ben Hunter, but did not see him at his event. Brugioni had handled an 8

mm film (Hunter and McMahon had a 16 mm film) that he considered an original; that it

was 8 mm is certain because NPIC had to purchase a projector (near midnight on

Saturday) from a private local store. (The NPIC did not own its own 8 mm projector.)

Brugioni also viewed photographs of the briefing boards currently in the Archives, which

had been authenticated by Hunter and McMahon. However, Brugioni was certain that

these were not his. He was even able to recall how his differed from these. Although

Hunter and McMahon's film reportedly came from Rochester, Brugioni was not told

where his had originated (most likely it was Zapruder's original—diverted from Chicago

to DC that Saturday).

Based on these interviews, Horne draws several conclusions: (1) the CIA had an

immediate and high level interest in the film; (2) the original film had been split from 16

mm to 8 mm in Dallas, just as the Dallas witnesses had agreed;59 (3) the extreme

compartmentalization implies that the two films were different; (4) Brugioni viewed

Zapruder's original (8mm), whereas Hunter and McMahon viewed an altered film (in 16

mm, unslit format); (5) the alterations were done during the day on Sunday, November

24, in Rochester, New York; (6) most likely aerial imaging was used for these alterations;

and (7) the three copies of the original (already in circulation60) then had to be replaced

by copies of the newly altered film. The reason that Horne chooses Sunday is

straightforward: LIFE's next issue reached the marketplace on Tuesday (November 26)

and it contained images from the extant film (the one currently in the Archives). Some of

these low resolution, black and white LIFE images (in Horne's opinion—and mine, too)

show signs of alteration, particularly the bizarre debris (sometimes called the "blob") on

58 Ibid. at 1236.

59 This contradicts Roland Zavada's final verdict on this question, although his initial conclusion had been precisely the opposite; see below for more on Zavada.

60 It is possible that some copies of these copies (sic) escaped the dragnet. Dan Rather, for example (The Camera Never Blinks (1977), at 127), claims that security for the film was extremely poor while he was at CBS. Multiple individuals have reported viewing a very different Zapruder film, actually one more consistent with the eyewitnesses (Fetzer (2000), supra, at 354). Millicent Cranor described to me a film that she saw in 1992 at NBC; she added that John Lattimer must have seen a similar film (Resident and Staff

Physician, May 1972, at 60). The LIFE issue of October 2, 1964, had six different versions according to Paul Hoch and Vincent Salandria (Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, Murder from Within (1974), at 143).

In one version Z-323 had a caption that described JFK's head as "snapping to one side" (also see my footnote 67); another version replaced this frame with Z-313 and a caption describing JFK's head as going forward.


JFK's face and the disappearance of the white object in the background grass. Horne

suspects that the alterations had all been completed by Sunday night, although he seems

not finally wedded to this concept. In any case, Loudon Wainwright61 said that 31 frames were employed for that issue of LIFE. Although other frames might have been open to alteration after Sunday, it seems likely that these 31 frames would have restricted later changes. (There are fewer than 500 in the entire film.)

Horne next reviews the momentous technical issues that bedevil the extant film—

anomalies that really should not be present. In fact, none of these would have been

predicted for an original film. Even a single one casts doubts on authenticity, but when a

complete list is compiled the evidence becomes overwhelming. Aside from image content

issues (which are very serious) this technical list includes the following items: (1) the

location of the punched number 183 is inconsistent on both the extant film and (in

photographic images) on the extant copies, (2) the punched numbers unique to each of

the three copies are quite strangely located, (3) the absence of intersprocket images on the

three copies was not predicted by the Jamieson lab, which had exposed them, (4) Zavada

could not reproduce the septum line, (5) the double registration of the Dallas processing

edge print is odd, (6) no one in Dallas recalled the bracketing (by exposure differences)

that is present in the three extant copies, (7) Zavada has shown remarkable indecisiveness

about when Zapruder's film was slit from 16 mm format to 8 mm, (8) the "full flush left"

issue62 was not resolved, and (9) claw flare is still a puzzle. That so many purely

technical issues persist would, by itself, be a wonder if the extant film indeed were


Horne also reviews the curious stories of Dan Rather64 and Cartha DeLoach.65

Both had been early viewers of the film and both had reported that JFK's head had gone

violently forward. To put this into perspective, the reader might ask himself this question:

How many individuals have you met who, after once viewing the film, agreed with the

reports of these two men? I have never met any. An actual Dealey Plaza witness, James

61 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1346. Wainwright was a LIFE employee who published The Great American Magazine—An Inside Story of LIFE (1986). This includes a (second-hand) account of these images in LIFE (November 29, 1963). He states that 31 enlargements were used in creating a sequential layout for that issue. 62 I recently viewed an original Zavada report; there is indeed one image of the red truck (Zavada Report (1998) at 1285) that does extend very near the left edge, just as Horne states. However, Horne's point is that the images in the extant Zapruder film nearly always extend fully left, whereas Zavada's test images only rarely show this phenomenon. Horne also cites the Janowitz/Myers film (Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1290), shot in Dealey Plaza with a camera like Zapruder's. As he viewed it on a DVD it seemed to show "full flush left," but Horne noted that he personally could not authenticate this film and would really prefer to see a film actually shot through Zapruder's camera. For more on this J/M film see


63 Many of these points had previously been made, as Horne acknowledges, both by Harry Livingstone and by me, although our work was admittedly based on Horne's initial efforts. Horne emphasizes that he only read Livingstone's book after he had done his own research. That the two of them reached so many common conclusions (they did indeed do so) is taken by Horne as (at least partial) verification of his own work. See Fetzer (1998), supra, and Fetzer (2000), supra, and also Harry Livingstone, The Hoax of the Century: Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film (2004).

64 Rather, supra, at 127.

65 Noel Twyman and I independently discovered DeLoach's report in his autobiography, Hoover's FBI: The Inside Story by Hoover's Trusted Lieutenant (1995), at 139. DeLoach does not comment on his obvious disagreement with the extant Zapruder film.


Altgens, a photographer, also described JFK's head as going forward.66 Horne also

reminds us that early viewers of the film easily saw debris (possibly brain tissue) flying

to the rear. One of these witnesses was Erwin Schwartz (Zapruder's partner), who saw

the film multiple times the very day that it was developed.67 Such backward-flying debris is nowhere seen in the extant film. Horne also notes the unrecorded turn from Houston to Elm (which both Zapruder and his secretary recalled filming) as well as the now-ancient problem of the limousine stop (first emphasized by Lifton many years ago). The discrepancies between the autopsy photographs, on the one hand, and the Zapruder film, on the other, are also reviewed. Horne offers likely explanations (of incompetent tampering) for these inconsistencies.

In an Addendum, "The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood," Horne recounts his

viewing of HD scans based on a 35 mm "dupe negative." His Hollywood contact got her

copy of the extant film (for $795) from a private laboratory, to which she had been

referred by the Archives' personnel themselves. (There is no other means to obtain such a

copy, as the Archives do not directly reproduce copies.) Horne describes his viewing

experiences with several Hollywood professionals (I have seen these, too). Quite striking

were (1) the black patch over JFK's head,68 (2) the oddly truncated corner of the

Stemmons Freeway sign,69 and (3) the "blob" on JFK's face.70 The black patch, in

particular, had sharp and geometric borders and was astonishingly black, especially when

compared to earlier frames (before Z-313) of JFK's head and also when compared to the

natural shadow on the back and side of Connally's head. I have since viewed the MPI

transparencies (copied directly from the extant film at the Archives) at the Sixth Floor

Museum in Dallas. These images, too, are quite striking. Since they are accessible by the

public, anyone should be able see them, merely by arranging an appointment with the

Museum. Horne concludes this section by printing his FOIA letter to the CIA and

associated letters on this subject to President Obama, Senator Webb, and DCI Panetta

(the CIA response is still pending). Among other items, he requested information on (1)

the highly secret CIA facility in Rochester, New York (Hawkeyeworks), (2) the optical

printer(s) available there in 1963, (3) the briefing boards prepared by Brugioni (which

might still exist), and (4) Brugioni's personal history of the NPIC. Brugioni told Janney

that he himself had written this history, which included a brief mention of his Zapruder

film event.

Horne suggests that the original Zapruder film may have been shot at 48 frames

per second, an option that was available on that camera:Removing the Car Stop and the Exit Debris From the Film Would Have Been Simple if Zapruder Had Actually Filmed the Motorcade at 'Slow Motion,' or at 48 Frames Per Second, Instead of at the Normal 'Run' Setting of 16 Frames Per Second.111

Horne suggests that simple frame excision could then have eliminated much of the

evidence of conspiracy. But this cannot work, as Costella has explained: the ghost images

(in the intersprocket area) make this impossible.112 When Zapruder's camera exposed

one frame (call it number 10), the gate (the metal frame that actually admits light to the

film) simultaneously exposed (in the intersprocket area) a modest portion of each

neighboring frame (call these 9 and 11).113 When Costella examined the film he learned

that these ghost images are, in fact, consistent with the central frame in each case—i.e.,

10 is always adjacent to 9 and 11 (and this works for any three adjacent frames). In a

sense then, each adjacent ghost image "belongs" to its primary frame—and not to any

other frame. On the other hand, if frame excision had occurred, each ghost image would

become separated from its simultaneously exposed primary frame; i.e., such excision

would have led to an adjacent ghost image exposed at a different time from the primary

frame. For example, for excision of every other frame, 10 would end up next to 8 and 12;

for excision of two of every three frames, 10 would end up next to 7 and 13. In either

case, these ghost images would not match the frames next to them. And Costella

emphasizes that enough information (e.g., motion blur) exists in these ghost images to

permit such a deduction. The bottom line is that such inconsistencies are not found in the

extant film. Furthermore, there is no escape from this problem, i.e., it is not possible

simply to erase a ghost image from the intersprocket area—once there, it is always there.

Partly based on this very powerful argument, Costella has argued that the extant film

must be a fabrication, i.e., a re-creation using parts of multiple films (and probably only a

rather modest portion of Zapruder's film at most). At least one of these films must have

been shot during the motorcade, but others could have been shot before or after, even

some days before or after. These then had to be stitched together to compose the extant

film. Even differences of perspective (as would be expected for films shot from slightly

different sites) could be overcome by selecting only pertinent parts of frames.

Costella concludes that the Stemmons freeway sign is one example of such a cut

and paste job. By analyzing the effects of pincushion distortion114 he concludes that the

sign was placed into the film after the fact, i.e., it looks constant in all frames. On the

other hand, if it had been shot from Zapruder's camera, it should have experienced

pincushion distortion: i.e., the sign would successively change its appearance from one

frame to the next. Furthermore, after several frames, these changes would accumulate to

become even more obvious. But the bottom line is that the Stemmons sign does not show

such pincushion effects, which means that it was placed after the fact by the film forgers.

This situation is closely analogous to the fake hairpiece on the back of JFK's head, where

the image looks 2D rather than 3D via the stereo viewer. In both cases, the same fake

image was placed (into multiple photographs—or into multiple frames) in a manner that

violates the basic rules of optics.

Based on these arguments, Costella concludes that it would have been impossible

to alter the film without discarding essentially all of the intersprocket areas and starting

all over. In that case, he argues, the total time for (final) fabrication would have taken

much longer than several days. Although Horne does not require completion of a final

film (i.e., the extant film) by Sunday night (November 24) he does suggest that the

Jamieson copies were switched quite promptly, likely within several days. Such a prompt

(yet final) switch implies a timeline that sharply contrasts with Costella's more leisurely

pace. Even David Healy (a professional video producer with decades of experience)

emphasized in his 2003 Duluth lecture that even if an altered film had been viewed on

Sunday night, November 24, it need not have been the final product (i.e., the extant film),

113 Each intersprocket area therefore contains two ghost images: one from the frame before and one from the frame after the primary frame that was exposed.

114 Fetzer (2003), supra, at xi, 23, 35, 164-169, 209. continued for "several weeks" afterwards, especially if a traveling matte had been


Costella also refers to the possibility that the proposed second film of the

motorcade (by an unknown photographer—or photographers) might have been shot in 16

mm format. If so, that would have made forgery ever so much easier, particularly since

the contemporaneous optical printers were not designed for 8 mm. It might also have

made the subsequent first generation copies (the extant ones, which are probably not the

Jamieson copies) appear more authentic after fabrication.

Costella goes on to wonder whether the splices in the film (e.g., between Z-208

and Z-212) were unavoidable during forgery for a simple reason: they may have

contained telltale ghost images of bystanders who appeared under the left edge of the

Stemmons sign.117 A splice is also present at Z-155 to Z-157. Curiously, this is close to

frames where Michael Stroscio, a physicist, identified a possible shot at Z-152 to Z-


There is a final, simple argument against a 48 fps scenario for Zapruder. If 48 fps

had been used, then when the film was shown that weekend, all of the action would have

appeared in slow motion—as if the actors were subject to the lesser gravity of the moon.

However, no one reported such an odd effect, even though someone surely should have.

Josiah Thompson has proclaimed that the Zapruder debate has been a gigantic

waste of time, because it is "junk science" that has produced nothing.125 Like Einstein's

opinion of quantum mechanics,126 Thompson's mind is stuck in the past. In fact, Horne

has presented revolutionary new data about the chain of possession. In view of

Thompson's now-shaky bedrock, many will find this new information very convincing

indeed—especially younger researchers new to the case, whose minds are still open. I

have previously summarized traditional historical (and scientific) views that were later

overturned,127 so no one should be surprised at this dénouement. Without nascent

heretics, our world would soon become more impoverished. In retrospect, it was best not

to offer obeisance to Roland Zavada (as the inerrant pope of the film), as Thompson

implied we should do.128 The two-event sequence at NPIC has all the hallmarks of a

covert operation—but for 46 years not even Brugioni knew what had transpired—and he

wrote the history of the NPIC! Some of us did not need more evidence, but others did.

These fence-sitters may now take their own time to decide. Some may even wish to make

a pilgrimage to view the MPI transparencies in Dallas. The real point, though, as Horne

states, is that the alteration of the film is, in itself, major evidence of a government coverup.

I could not agree more.

What remains controversial for many though is the timeline for alteration. Horne

favors a very short timeline, while Costella prefers a distinctly longer one. The early

appearance in LIFE of altered frames (e.g., the "blob" on JFK's face and the

disappearance of the white object in the background grass) indicate that some frames had

been altered before Sunday night, November 24. In addition, the Hunter/McMahon

briefing boards show the extremely black patch over JFK's occiput, as well as the blob. It

is possible, though not certain, that incriminating flying debris was also removed by

Sunday night. The Stemmons sign and the lamppost (both added after the fact, according

123 LBJ later gave Humes a personal set of presidential cufflinks, which Humes wore during his ARRB visit.

124 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1188. Horne cites these superiors as Edward C. Kenney (Surgeon General of the Navy), Calvin Galloway (Commanding Officer of the Bethesda National Naval Medical Center), and George Burkley (White House Physician). All were admirals. Also see Vincent Palamara's summary at


125 Josiah Thompson: "One way of looking at this continuing argument is to see it as a gigantic waste of time, as a prime example of junk science from educated people who ought to know better. It may have amusement value in some chronicle of 'silly science,' but, in terms of knowledge about the Kennedy assassination, it has produced literally nothing." See his entire essay at


126 Rebecca Goldstein (a MacArthur Genius Fellow), The Mind-Body Problem: A Novel (1983), at 140-141

127 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 371-411.

128 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1290. At the 2003 Pittsburgh conference, Cyril Wecht set his sails in precisely the opposite direction—he advised his audience not to trust the experts but instead to do their own analysis; see


I very much side with Wecht.


to Costella) also appear in LIFE's first JFK issue, in low-resolution black and white

photographs. Now consider this: McMahon concluded that JFK was hit by 6-8 shots,

fired from at least three directions. Evidence for these shots is absent from the extant

film, so he must have seen a different film (though probably not the original). If

McMahon's observations were correct, then he must have seen a partly altered film. That

would leave time for Costella's more leisurely scenario.

The chief argument for a short timeline is the need to dispose promptly of the

Jamieson (first-day) copies; the problem, of course, is that the longer these persisted the

longer the original images might be copied—or recalled—by others. Horne notes that the

FBI returned its Jamieson copy to the Secret Service by Tuesday, November 26.129

However, we do not know the disposition of any other FBI copies, i.e., later generation

copies made from the Jamieson copies (that the FBI might have already made by then).130

So perhaps this cover-up was a two-step process: (1) retrieve quickly all possible copies

(including Jamieson copies and all those made from Jamieson's)131 and (2) sometime

later (e.g., within one or two months) replace those earlier ones by copies subsequently

made from the extant film. Perhaps the FBI was even given some credible excuse for the

delay in replacement (e.g., an improved quality copy was pending); in any case, it is

likely that J. Edgar Hoover would have cooperated with any reasonable suggestion to

abet the cover-up. But LIFE, too, had a copy. However, after their early assassination

coverage, they had no need for the film, as a movie film. Given the role of C. D. Jackson

(LIFE's publisher), first in the very expensive purchase of the film, and then in his

sequestering of the film (with no profit accruing to LIFE), it is likely (especially in view

of his longtime intelligence connections)132 that he also would have agreed to such a

delayed replacement.

But there is still the matter of the three black and white copies of the extant film,

discovered in the year 2000 by the Sixth Floor Museum among materials sold to

Zapruder in 1975 by Time, Inc.133 Their format is 16 mm, unslit, with the motorcade on

one side and Zapruder home scenes on the other (adjacent) side. These include markings

on the film that identify specific frames actually printed in LIFE.134 An irresistible

deduction from these markings, of course, is that the extant film had already been

completed by that early date. In fact, however, all that is certain is that specific frames

(those made public) must have been finalized by that date. On the other hand, if

Costella's more leisurely timeframe is adopted, that would imply that these black and

white copies were only later placed into the LIFE collection—marked up appropriately

after the fact—so as to give the impression that the markings (and the extant film, too)

dated to November. Although this scenario may be true, no eyewitness to date has

corroborated it.

129 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1199.

130 The National Archives does possess later generation copies of the extant film, labeled as being from the FBI.

131 Costella implies that this collection process was not entirely successful, i.e., that there were "multiple films" in circulation, "not one."

132 Ibid. at 1202.

133 Ibid. at 1199.

134 That issue was dated November 29, 1963, but most likely it first appeared on newsstands on Tuesday,November 26.



The HD scans (cited above) of selected Zapruder frames should be scanned with

an optical densitometer. If possible, multiple wavelengths (colors) should be employed.

These scans should then be compared to controls, e.g., JFK's head before Z-313 and

Connally's head (at most any time). This might quantify the magnitude of photoalteration, thus making the conclusions more scientific. Further studies may be forthcoming from the Hollywood nexus. New films shot via a camera like Zapruder's might yet provide further insights. Of course, if extant films (i.e., original ones, not altered ones) from Zapruder's actual camera can still be located that would be even better. As Horne suggests, at the National Archives two autopsy photographs of the posterior scalp (from a matched pair) should be overlaid on a view box. If the images of

the suspect area perfectly align, that would constitute powerful evidence of photoalteration. Control areas should also be extensively compared, just to see what nonidentical (but stereo-matched) pairs look like. Surprisingly, no one has done this.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...