Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

[Dean Hagerman]

That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard

If you have NEVER done anything even similar how can you know if what is being described...AND WHAT YOU CLAIM TO "BELIEVE", is really correct?

It's not ludicrous at all. It's a technical problem. If you don't have the proper techincal background, how can YOU properly judge what it is you are reading?

Unless of course your just "BELIEVE"

Really?

So in your world I would have to be a Supreme Court Justice to know how the Supreme Court works?

See how silly you sound

[Craig Lamson]

Really?

So in your world I would have to be a Supreme Court Justice to know how the Supreme Court works?

See how silly you sound

Is being a member of SCOTUS a techincal problem deano?

But hey, lets play your very silly game. How do you know what healy wrote applies to the Zapruder film? Can you show us and PROVE correct a problem with the Zapruder film created by the technical process described in tgzfh?

[Dean Hagerman]

Is being a member of SCOTUS a techincal problem deano?

There would be a ton of techincal problems if I tried to become a Supreme Court Justice

[Craig Lamson]

Is being a member of SCOTUS a techincal problem deano?

There would be a ton of techincal problems if I tried to become a Supreme Court Justice

Dodgeball is really your game. WHY are you so afraid of trying to prove your position? Just because you lost the jacket fold issue?

Lets review your latest D-D-D

How do you know what healy wrote applies to the Zapruder film? Can you show us and PROVE correct a problem with the Zapruder film created by the technical process described in tgzfh?

[Greg Burnham]

So, once again, true to form, François Carlier jumps in with idiotic personal attacks; he is then joined by Viklund who has nothing to offer; Lamson chimes in to engage (in this case) Dean Hagerman for no other purpose than to DERAIL the point of this thread by changing the discussion to JFK's jacket/coat and then bringing up the SCOTUS (are you kidding me right now?); Harris chimes in with a depth of misunderstanding of this part of the conspiracy equivalent to that of a "distant cousin you're required to respect, but who has a second nose attached to his shoulder, which forces you to disclaim him even though you privately like him"...sheesh.

But, back on topic:

The technology to alter film in 1963 was far and away adequate to the task of manipulating the Zapruder film. The techniques displayed in the 1928 film clip that I posted are much more advanced than "anti-alterationists" have claimed were available in 1963.

I am NOT claiming that "the same techniques" were used in both films--because by 1963 the techniques were much more advanced than they were in 1928!

That said: Dean Hagerman held his own; David Healey is, of course, an expert on the subject; and Chris Davidson made a very good point--to be sure.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[François Carlier]

So, once again, true to form, Frances Colt(?)--whatever his name is-- ... bla bla bla [nonsense skipped]

My God !

My name is François Carlier. It is written everywhere. That's just two words.

And you are not even able to remember it. Two words.

No wonder you have proved totally unable to weigh evidence and reach a sane conclusion in the JFK case !

Yes, indeed, someone who is capable of writing "Frances Colt" instead of "François Carlier" is quite capable also of believing in fairy tales such as an altered Zapruder film...

/François Carlier/

Edited August 11, 2010 by François Carlier

[Greg Burnham]

So, once again, true to form, Frances Colt(?)--whatever his name is-- ... bla bla bla [nonsense skipped]

My God !

My name is François Carlier. It is written everywhere. That's just two words.

And you are not even able to remember it. Two words.

No wonder you have proved totally unable to weigh evidence and reach a sane conclusion in the JFK case !

/François Carlier/

So, back on topic:

The technology to alter film in 1963 was far and away adequate to the task of manipulating the Zapruder film. The techniques displayed in the 1928 film clip that I posted are much more advanced than "anti-alterationists" have claimed were available in 1963.

I am NOT claiming that "the same techniques" were used in both films--because by 1963 the techniques were much more advanced than they were in 1928! --

This is NOT about "your name" --

[François Carlier]

You changed your original message, but this time I had copied it. Too bad for you.

/F.C./

[François Carlier]

Whatever the state of technology in 1928, or 1963, or any other year, for that matter, "alterationists" have been totally unable :

-1. to show convincingly that there had been any alteration on the Zapruder film.

-2. to duplicate any of those so-called alterations.

Well, I am not holding my breath. We all know they never will.

/F.C./

Edited August 11, 2010 by François Carlier

[Greg Burnham]

You changed your original message, but this time I had copied it. Too bad for you.

/F.C./

Sorry I misspelled your name, but this is NOT about your name; it is not about JFK's jacket; it is not about who can or cannot become a Supreme Court Justice; it is not about any other "side show attractions" -- !!!

Are there ANY moderators reading this stuff? Are you kidding me right now?

Do you not pay attention to deliberate THREAD DISRUPTION or DERAILMENT at all?

I don't believe in censorship either, but...it is one thing to disagree with a post, it is another thing to deliberately disrupt a thread! Censorship can come in many forms, including DISRUPTION of thread topics by detractors, agents provocateurs, and hackers.

When you fail to enforce boundaries, then whatever happens to your forum...you probably unwittingly invited.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

You changed your original message, but this time I had copied it. Too bad for you.

/F.C./

Sorry I misspelled your name, but this is NOT about your name; it is not about JFK's jacket; it is not about who can or cannot become a Supreme Court Justice; it is not about any other "side show attractions" -- !!!

Are there ANY moderators reading this stuff? Are you kidding me right now?

Do you not pay attention to deliberate THREAD DISRUPTION or DERAILMENT at all?

I don't believe in censorship either, but...it is one thing to disagree with a post, it is another thing to deliberately disrupt a thread! Censorship can come in many forms, including DISRUPTION of thread topics by detractors, agents provocateurs, and hackers.

When you fail to enforce boundaries, then whatever happens to your forum...you probably unwittingly invited.

Jump off your hobby horse Burnham. Shall we point out your posts in other threads designed to distract, disrupt and derail?

That said, you and always try and prove the z film was altered. Or actually produce some footage that proves it could be done. However your batting average is zero on those counts. Maybe better for you to bluster on about distractions....

BTW, WHO took this thread into distraction, disruption and derailment?

Edited August 11, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Paul Rigby]

Obituary for Robert Boyle, Hollywood production designer, not least on several of Hitchcock's classics:

Boyle said that being production designer on The Birds was his most complex work. The town of Bodega Bay, where most of the action takes place, was actually a composite of several towns, reproduced on mattes. The filming of the fire was done in the studio parking lot and the town was added in, matte by matte, afterwards.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/aug/10/robert-boyle-obituary

The anti-alterationist argument must necessarily be that CIA couldn't or wouldn't access and/or mimic contemporary Hollywood techniques; and that Dulles, Angleton et al were content to alter the Presidency, but not a piece of film. Ridiculous, but that's what they invite us to believe.

Best of all, they invite us to dismiss the CIA's ability to undertake pretty basic matte-ing on the basis of no knowledge or experience of the Agency's capabilities in this and related areas. Again, it's absurd, but that's what they would have us believe.

[Stephen Roy]

The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" -- Starring Mac (George Bundy?) and TUM (The Umbrella Man?)...

Many thanks to my friend, Scott Myers, for the clip...

Film clip posted for research purposes ONLY:

Interesting. Like David, I have a long background in TV (including the end of the film era), and I'd like to give this some consideration.

The question of a film alteration technology being adequate in 1963 depends on the type of alteration one believes was used on this film in 1963. Greg, can you specify any particular type of alteration you believe was used on the Z-film? Is there any consensus among "alterationists" as to what type of alteration might have been used?

Another factor to consider is if such alteration could go undetected by both the public and by trained eyes.

I confess that I come at this as something of a skeptic, but I'm not closed-minded

[Paul Rigby]

Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974)

Chapter 4: The Filmed Assassination

One of the most important films of the murder was an 8 mm color movie taken by Abraham Zapruder. The Secret Service had first access to his original film, which was then altered in an attempt to cover up the agency’s part in the plot.

Zapruder stood mid-way between the depository and the underpass (1) and filmed the Presidential limousine from the time it turned the corner of Elm and Houston Streets until it reached the triple underpass. His untampered film recorded what occurred inside the vehicle.

A number of copies of the Zapruder film, whose clarity ranged from excellent to poor, including the films and slides at Life magazine and those at the National Archives, were made available to the authors. Each copy was carefully examined and this chapter deals basically with the results of that examination.

A movie is a series of individual pictures, or frames, in consecutive order (2). In describing the film, we refer to numbers assigned to each frame.

Description

The Presidential limousine first appears on available Zapruder film at frame 133, at a point in the street opposite the centre of the depository (3). The President, seated in the back on the right, is waving to the crowd with his right arm. He is hidden from camera view by a freeway sign, beginning at frame 203, and is shot in the throat at approximately frame 207. When he reappears from behind the sign at frame 225, his mouth is open and his hands are raised to his throat. From this point, he starts to lean forward, and to his left, until frame 313, when his head is impacted by a bullet.

Beginning with frame 305, the driver turns around, one hand on the wheel, and faces the President (4), at which point the President’s head is struck by the fatal bullet.

Between frames 313 and 323, the President is slammed backward by the impact of the shot. Between frames 323 and 340, he falls forward, and to his left, into his wife’s lap.

Mrs. Kennedy scrambles out of the limousine, over the trunk, between frames 345 and 375. Her bodyguard, Clinton J. Hill, touches the back of the limousine at frame 345, placing his foot on the car at frame 371, to assist her.

When the Governor reappears from behind the freeway sign at frame 223, he is looking to his right. Then he begins to turn his head forward. Between frames 227 and 230, he raises his hat (the whereabouts of which, possibly containing bullet hole, is unknown) up-and-down in reaction. At frame 233, he starts to raise his left forearm and to turn to his right again. The Governor’s mouth is open. Between frames 255 and 292, he continues to turn his head to the right, exposing his back to the front seat, until he is looking at the President. At frame 285, he is shot. He is then pulled backward by his wife.

After the fatal shot to the President at frame 313, the Governor begins to pull himself up, placing his right hand on the metal handhold on the top of the back of the front seat. At frame 323, he is sitting up, looking into the front seat.

A visible flare on the windshield of the limousine occurs at frame 330 as the result of another shot.

Authentication

For the Warren Commission, an FBI photographic expert numbered each frame of the Zapruder film. The first frame of the motorcade sequence was number “1” and the following frames were counted in order (5).

In its published record of the film, the Commission printed black-and-white photographs of frame 171 through 334. This is just before the limousine disappears behind the freeway sign until just before Mrs. Kennedy begins to climb out of the back seat (6).

The same numbering was used for those available copies of the Zapruder film that the authors examined. Each copy was placed on a viewer that allowed every frame to be seen and counted individually.

The examined copies agreed with the published version. For example, frame 171 of the copies we examined was identical to the published frame 171. The head shot at frame 313 in the copies was the same as frame 313 printed by the Commission.

All available copies were a single, continuous strip of film, without any mechanical splices.

In sum, those available copies matched the film that the Warren Commission viewed.

The original Zapruder film, however, seems to be unavailable.

Cuts

Between the period that Zapruder took his film and the Commission saw it, the film was altered.

Available copies that we examined showed splices present (Fig. 4-3). All splices were photographic, i.e., the mechanical splices of the original were copied onto the duplicates (7).

The following is an inventory of our examination.

Splices in frames 152-159 concern the period after the limousine turned Elm and Houston Streets and before the freeway sign.

Frame 152 is spliced at the bottom of the frame. In the next frame, splices exist at both top and bottom. In addition, the color changes. Instead of the previous warm color, the frames have a bluish cast. A great difference between frames 153 and 152 is indicated by the movement of the limousine: it makes an extremely rapid forward lurch indicating frames are missing here.

Frame 154 has a splice at the top and is bluish in cast. Frame 155 contains a splice at the top third of the frame. Splicing tape marks are present in the foreground of frame 156, which is also bluish; a crude splicing gap appears at the base. A splice may exist at the lower third of frame 159.

The next sequence in which splicing and color change occur is during the that period when the limousine is hidden by the freeway sign.

There is a possible splice in the top eighth of frame 205. Splicing tape adhesive marks are visible on the freeway sign in frame 206. Frame 206 has a bluish cast, as do frames 207-212.

Frame 207 is spliced at the top. A splice may have been made on frame 210 near the bottom. On frame 211, splicing adhesive tape marks are present. Splicing adhesive covers frame 212; a crude cut out is at the base. Frame 213 has a splice at the top; the color changes back to warm hues. At frame 215, a splice line runs across the top fourth of the frame.

Color change indicates that different copies of the film were used to produce one continuous film (8).

A graph, made to show the feet the limousine traveled per frame number, indicates the limousine moved about 20 feet every 20 frames (Fig. 4-4). Between frames 197 and 218, when the limousine is behind the freeway sign, it moved only 10 feet within 21 frames. This means that the limousine either slowed down or stopped between frames 197 and 218. If it stopped then an unaccountable number of frames could have been removed.

Throughout the entire Zapruder film, nothing indicates that frames have been added. What is clear is that frames have been removed. Time has been deleted from the film. With time removed, the film is useless as a clock for the assassination.

Retouching

Retouching has been done with the image of the driver in the film between frames 214-333. It appears after the limousine emerges from behind the freeway sign. Retouching is evident on the front of the limousine windshield on the driver’s side to obscure his movements. The author’s reconstruction film, taken of a car on Elm Street, under similar lighting conditions, on Nov. 22, 1969, at 12:30 p.m., shows the driver’s motions clearly through the windshield.

Retouching may also occur at the top of the freeway sign to obscure the action of the occupants and to hide the shot hitting the President in the throat.

The object in the driver’s hand is barely visible between frames 285 and 297, the sequence of the Governor’s wounds. Between frames 303-317, it is easily seen. The telling feature, especially in the latter sequence, is the action: the driver raises it, seems to aim, and, then, in the frame immediately after the fatal shot to the President in frame 313, brings it down.

Although splicing marks were undetectable about frame 313, it is likely that frames were removed and the remaining retouched. The appearance of frame 313 is vital to the health of the scenario.

Given the forward inclination of the President’s head at the time of the fatal shot (Fig. 4-5), a line drawn through the actual points of entrance and exit is horizontal. If a rifleman fired from above and behind, the line between the points of exit and entrance would be at an angle.

To camouflage evidence of a shot from the front, the actual exit wound at the side of the head (Fig. 4-5) was covered with opaque (Fig. 4-6).

Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other films of the assassination lack this halo (9). The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder film two days after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an exploding head (10). Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony (11).

The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the President’s head (12), not only confuses the features of the head, but also distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground.

The two Secret Service agents in the front seat and both Connallys implied a shot came from the rear by claiming that a substantial amount of debris came forward and down on them (13). No pictorial evidence verifies their claims.

A good indication of removal of frames during the fatal shot sequence is found in the out-of-sequence movements of the legs of a woman running across the lawn in the background. The rhythm of her running is broken unnaturally, e.g., running on her left leg twice, which would indicate frame removal.

Retouching can be seen in a comparison of frames 317 and 321 (Fig. 4-7). The President and his wife appear large in frame 321, even though the dimensions of the two frames are equal in size. Frame 321 was optically enlarged and then reframed. This eliminated material at the right hand side of the picture, such as the driver and the windshield. In addition, it is possible that in frame 321 the windshield was painted-in; it fails to match the windshield in frame 317. In addition, a change in perspective occurs. The line in the back seat in frame 321 has shifted. This means that the limousine has gone further down the street and that an unknown number of frames were removed (14).

Refilming

More evidence of tampering is indicated with the framing of the pictures, especially between frames 280-300. There, the heads of both the President and Connally scarcely appear, and almost disappear from view. This means that the original film was probably refilmed, and reframed, in such a manner as to remove certain material just below their heads.

For example, on the afternoon of Nov. 24, 1963, two days after the assassination, CBS newsman Dan Rather viewed a copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas. His report noted that Connally, as he turned to look back at the President, “…exposed his entire shirt front and chest because his coat was unbuttoned…at that moment a shot very clearly hit that part of the Governor” (15). On available copies, only Connally’s head appears in this sequence.

The possibility exists that the original Zapruder film was refilmed on an optical printer. Modern cinematography laboratories are equipped with optical printing machines that can generate a new negative without the “errors” of the original. Optical printers can insert new frames, skip frames, re-size the images, along with other creative illusions. One hour on the optical printer could eliminate the Connally hit (16).

Deletions

Most available copies, when viewed on a screen as a movie, are slightly jerky, especially in the movement of the limousine. Perhaps the maximum number of cuts was made, the greatest number of frames removed, without making it obvious to the casual viewer.

Certain items could not be altered, such as the President’s head and body snapping backward, without elaborate artwork. But, of those who have seen the film, the cuts are overcome by the way in which people see the movie. The viewer’s focus is usually on the President, not on the other people in the limousine.

Some of the action depicted on the film that was difficult to explain had to be eliminated.

First, the limousine initially appears on available copies some 40 feet down from the top of the street; it literally leaps into view. Yet Zapruder stated that he filmed the limousine as it turned onto Elm St. from Houston St. (17). The copy that CBS reporter Dan Rather saw two days after the assassination apparently had the turn on it because Rather described it (18).

Frames deleted between 152-159 probably showed the decoy shot being fired from the Vice-President’s follow-up car.

Cuts between frames 205-215 likely relate to two areas: reaction to the decoy (first) shot, and the second (throat) shot.

Between frames 207-212, the President seems to swing his head very quickly to his left as if in reaction to the decoy shot. His action would indicate the direction of the Secret Service agent’s revolver as well as sharply contrast with the lack of reaction by those agents in the front seat of the Presidential limousine.

The President’s reaction to the second shot, which hit him in the throat, is missing. Zapruder testified, “…I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area)” (19). CBS reporter Dan Rather said that “…the President lurched forward just a bit, it was obvious he had been hit in the movie…” (20).

The Commission, which received the film from the Secret Service, published frames 207 and 212, both obviously spliced, but failed to print frames 208-211 (21).

The alterations after the fatal shot probably were concerned with eliminating the limousine stop and the rush by Secret Service agents upon it. Indeed, the Secret Service made an effort “…to ascertain whether any [movie news] film could be found showing special agents on the ground alongside the Presidential automobile at any point along the parade route” (22).

Film Confiscation

In other films of the assassination, activity in the front seat of the limousine is either obscured or absent. All known movie films of the murder (except Zapruder’s) omit the sequence where the President was first hit. Confiscation of film explains this less than random pattern; all would not stop their cameras at the same time.

Fig. 4-8 shows the areas of Houston and Elm Streets covered by nine known, amateur movie cameras, tracking the limousine. All of the professional movie cameramen were too far back to take footage of the action, except one.

One amateur said that his 8 mm color film was lost during processing. When it was finally returned, some frames were ruined, others were missing (23). The assassination sequence that reached the FBI had 150 frames, equivalent to eight seconds (24). The limousine was in the amateur’s view for some 20 seconds, not including the time it was stopped.

Another amateur’s 8 mm color movie film contained 66 frames of the assassination, approximately three and one-half seconds (25).

Two Secret Service agents obtained both of a woman’s black-and-white still Polaroid photographs (26). One photograph showed the motorcade with the depository in the background; the other caught the President a split-second after he was struck in the head (27). When the two pictures were returned, her friend thought “some things had been erased” (28). Her friend recalled that the woman took four or five photographs of the motorcade, including “two or three good ones” of the President (29).

A man turned his photographs over to a Secret Service agent who kept them for about one month before returning them (30). Retouching is apparent on a 35 mm colored slide he took about the time of the first shot (31).

James W. Altgens, a professional photographer, took his still black-and-white photographs back to his office at Associated Press, had the film processed, and put on the wire (32). The Secret Service was unable to intercept these.

Altgens snapped four photographs of the limousine as it approached Main and Houston Streets and turned right into Houston Street heading for the depository building. Then, he ran down across the grass triangle in the center of Dealey Plaza and into the sparsely populated assassination zone. Directly across from a grassy knoll, where Zapruder was filming, Altgens stepped from the curb and took a photograph of the approaching limousine approximately midway in the execution. Returning to the curb, he snapped another one of the limousine when it was two or three car lengths past him. These professional quality photographs were to become the clearest taken that day of the limousine on Elm Street.

Altgens moved approximately 240 feet from Main and Houston Streets to snap his Elm St. photograph of the limousine in mid-assassination. The limousine traveled approximately 330 feet during this time. These distances give some indication of the low speed of the motorcade.

A professional movie cameraman, within range, was referred to by an ABC News Director during a TV broadcast. The Director said:

“A tv newsreel man was following in a car just behind the Presidential motorcade and at that particular moment had the President in the frame of his camera. He had it on close-up and he was panning from the Texas Library building [sic]…As soon as he saw the President fall…he then panned up and he said…”If I have on film what I saw through the eye of my camera, I have the complete assassination.” At that particular point…he was picked up by a Secret Serviceman. The Secret Service impounded the film; it was allegedly 16 mm color” (33).

No such film has been located. Such professional quality film would show not only activity in the limousine, but also an empty “sniper’s nest” (34).

Getting the Zapruder Film

How did the Secret Service acquire Zapruder’s film?

After Zapruder completed his filming, he returned to his office and asked his secretary “…to call the police or the Secret Service” (35). Then he went to his desk where he waited “…until the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the film” (36).

An inspector with the Dallas Police Dept. was notified about Zapruder’s film. A sergeant told him that Zapruder refused to give the police the film and was waiting for either the Secret Service or the FBI. The inspector sent the sergeant, with two other men, to bring Zapruder and his movie to him. Instead, the sergeant reported back that Forrest V. Sorrels of the Secret Service was with Zapruder. The inspector then told his men to go about their usual assignments because “…since Forrest was already there and talking to him [Zapruder], I knew that that part would be taken care of” (37).

Sorrels first learned about the film from a crime reporter for the Dallas Morning News (38). According to Sorrels, Zapruder “…agreed to furnish me with a copy of this film with the understanding that it was strictly for official use of the Secret Service…” (39).

Sorrels went to the Dallas Morning News in mid-afternoon (40). He found that the newspaper was unable to develop the film, but did learn that the Eastman Kodak Co., in Dallas, could do so (41).

The Kodak Film Processing Laboratory received “…one 8 mm Kodachrome II Film…” on November 22, and claimed they returned it unaltered to Zapruder. Kodak perforated the identification number 0183 at the “…end of the processed film and carrier strip [leader]…”(42).

Sorrels may have advised Zapruder to have three copies made of the film. Kodak was unable to do so. The Jamieson Film Co. of Dallas, however, could make copies if the 8 mm film was in its original form as a 25-foot roll of 16 mm (8 mm is made by dividing the 16 mm and splicing the two 25 foot rolls together). Zapruder, therefore, had Kodak process the film without splitting it, then took it to Jamieson (43).

Jamieson also received the film on November 22. The company asserted the film remained unaltered during the printing operation. Zapruder received three duplicate copies with the identification number 0183, at the end of the original film, printed onto the three duplicates (44).

Zapruder returned to Kodak where he had the three duplicates processed and developed. They were given the identification numbers 0185, 0186, and 0187 (45). What happened to 0184 is unclear.

Zapruder then had a total of four films, one original and three duplicates. He said he gave Sorrels two copies. Sorrels kept one and another was rushed to Washington, D.C., on November 22, by army plane. (46). Yet, according to a note of transmittal from a Secret Service agent to Secret Service Chief Rowley in Washington, D.C., the disposition was different. The agent stated: “Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the ‘master’ film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded” (47).

Also on Friday evening, November 22, Sorrels did a frame-by-frame study of the Zapruder film in his Dallas office. According to Dallas Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes, who was present, “…we thumbed [through] that thing for an hour or more…push[ing] it up one frame at a time” (48).

The next day, November 23, Sorrels gave a copy to an inspector of the Secret Service who at a later date loaned it to the FBI. The FBI returned it to the inspector, who gave it to Sorrels for the Dallas office of the Secret Service (49).

The FBI was dependent upon the Secret Service for a copy of the film, which it then duplicated for its examination (50). The Secret Service retained the film until the altered version was prepared.

Life

On November 23, 1963, Zapruder made an agreement with Life magazine (51). Two days later, he asked Life to acknowledge receipt of the original and one copy (52). He wrote that the Secret Service had the other two copies, one in Dallas, and one in Washington, D.C. (53).

When did Life acquire physical possession of the film? On November 29, 1963, Life printed some frames. But it only talked of a “…series of pictures…”; it failed to mention that it was a movie and also the name of the man who made it (54).

There are two indications that Life was not in possession of the film. First, the lack of clarity in its reproduction suggests a copy. Second, the magazine enjoyed a reputation for its color printing. The film was in color, but Life’s reproduction was in black-and-white (55).

In its memorial edition of December 13, 1963, Life printed colored reproductions of the film and mentioned “a Dallas clothing manufacturer…[took] pictures with his 8 mm home movie camera: it is from his film that these pictures are taken” (56). Yet three days later, the Warren Commission only saw a series of still photographs made from the film (57). It was not until Feb. 25, 1964, that Life showed its version of the film to the Commission” (58).

It is likely that the Secret Service sanctioned what frames could be printed between 1963 and Sep. 1964, when the Commission issued its report. In the October 2, 1964, issue of Life, which covered the Warren Commission’s report, frame sprockets are missing on the cover and eight frames featured inside (59).

The October 2, 1964, issue of Life appeared in at least six versions (60). Frame 313, with the bursting head, appeared in color in three of the six versions.

Chairman Warren displayed his advance knowledge of the head burst before the Warren Commission on Dec. 16, 1963. “There’s another sequence which they [Life] did not include,” he said, “and it shows the burst of blood and things from his head, blown out” (61). This seems to be the earliest date when certain knowledge was expressed about the manufactured head burst. This frame was not printed in Life until Oct. 2, 1964. CBS reporter Dan Rather, who saw the film in Dallas two days after the assassination, did not mention this dramatic burst. In addition, other movie films of this same sequence failed to record it.

At what point did Life realize that it did not have the original film? It waited until May 1967 to copyright it (62).

Tell-Tale Sign

At some time between Nov. 22, 1963, and Dec. 5, 1963, the Stemmons Freeway sign was re-positioned and raised, invalidating any accurate reconstruction of the crime.

On Dec. 16, 1963, member John J. McCloy commented on it and its significance before a Commission meeting: “You see this sign here,” he said, “pointing to a frame from the Zapruder film, “someone suggested that this sign has now been removed…from the sign you can get a good notion of where the first bullet hit” (63).

It was on July 22, 1964, however, when the Commission interviewed the Dealey Plaza grounds keeper. He commented, “…they have moved some of those signs. They have moved that R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign” (64).

A photograph taken during the Secret Service re-enactment (Fif. 4-9) on Dec. 5, 1963, when compared to Zapruder frame 207 (Fig. 4-10) shows the following. First, the sign had been moved to the right and raised. Second, the angle of the sign to the camera differs from Zapruder’s. The sign’s new position is also shown when the FBI reconstruction photograph of May 24, 1964, (Fig. 4-11), is overlayed with the Secret Service photo of Dec. 5, 1963. The overlay (Fig. 4-12) was made by matching the tree (A), masonry holes (, and windows © in both.

The FBI apparently tried to have the sign replaced to approximately where it was on Nov. 22, 1963. Note how much of the stand-ins can be seen (Fig. 4-11) as compared to frame 207 (Fig. 4-10). There is also a difference in appearance between the two signs: the sign in frame 207 (Fig. 4-10) has a medium grey tone while that in the Secret Service (Fig. 4-9) and FBI (Fig. 4-11) reconstructions is solid black.

After May 24, 1964, the sign was removed, making any accurate reconstruction of the Zapruder film impossible (65).

Altering Time

The Secret Service produced the first re-enactment tests and surveys. These would be the basis of the information for both the FBI and the Commission, and thereby mislead them.

On Nov. 25, 1963, the Secret Service made a survey in Dealey Plaza to establish bullet trajectories (66).

Two days later, the Secret Service held its first re-enactment. Using a surveyor and the Zapruder film, an agent measured the distance from the eastern window ledge of the depository’s sixth floor to the car. The distance for the neck shot was given as 170 feet, the point at which the view of the car is blocked by the freeway sign. The head shot was stated as 260 feet. He claimed the point where Connally was shot was undeterminable (67).

The Secret Service photographs of its re-enactment show the car at 170 and 260 feet; its map designates these two shots at frames 207 and 375, with frame 330 as the shot for Connally (68).

Again, on Dec. 5, 1963, the Secret Service held another re-enactment. At that time, the car, according to photographs, was positioned at frames 207, 330, and 375. When this was put on a map, they co-ordinated with frames 207, 285, and 330 (69).

A final version of the hits further compressed the time. The Warren Commission stated that the President was first hit between frames 210-225, and Connally was hit between frames 235-240. Frame 313 was the final hit (70).

In short, the timing of the shots was compressed. This solved the problem of time that the film had created. Zapruder’s movie camera ran at 18 frames per second (71). The scenario rifle required a minimum of 2.3 seconds between shots, or 42 frames (72). The difference between the Commission’s designations of the first hit on the President and the hit on Connally was less than 42 frames, exceeding the rifles capability. If one shot hit both, however, then the Commission avoided the problem of having to deal with another gun and a conspiracy.

But the altered film still left major problems unexplained by the single-bullet hypothesis: 1) the lack of reaction by the President’s guards, who were supposed to protect him; 2) the backward movement of the President’s head after he was struck at frame 313; and 3) Mrs. Kennedy’s crawling across the trunk in panic.

Notes:

1) Abraham Zapruder, “Testimony of Abraham Zapruder [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 570.

2) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated June 4, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 5, p. 139.

3) Calculation by photo triangulation.

4) “…the Secret Service agent…must be able to hit the target under any and all conditions…” (C.B. Colby, Secret Service: History, Duties and Equipment, p. 20.)

According to Merriman Smith, “All [agents on the White House Detail of the Secret Service] are crack shots with either hand. Their pistol marksmanship is tested on one of the toughest ranges in the country. The bull’s-eye of their target is about half the size of the one ordinarily used on police and Army ranges. They must qualify with an unusually high score every thirty days, and if any one of them – or any of the White House police, which falls under Secret Service jurisdiction – falls below a certain marksmanship standard, they are transferred. Agents must also qualify periodically firing from moving vehicles. This accounts for the requirement to shoot well with either hand. A right-handed agent might be clinging to a speeding car with that hand and have to shoot with the left.” (Timothy G. Smith (ed.), op. cit., p. 226.)

In his testimony, Greer claimed he “…made a quick glance and back again,” over his right shoulder, at the time of the second shot. He stated, “My eyes [turned] slightly [to the right] more than my head. My eyes went more than my head around. I had a vision real quick of it.” (Greer, op. cit., v. 2, p. 118.)

One study (1971) of the Zapruder film approximated the direction, clockwise, that the occupants faced in the limousine. In orientation, noon was the front of the car, 6 o’clock was on the trunk, 9 o’clock was the mid-point on the left, and 3 o’clock that on the right of the limousine. Greer was judged to be looking to the right and rear twice. He was in the 4:30 position from frames 282-290, the sequence when Connally is shot; in the 3:30-5 position from frames 303-316, the sequence with the fatal shot.

Another study (1967), made without the film and working only from the frames, estimated Greer to be 40 degrees to his right beginning at frame 240 and extending to 80 degrees from frame 270 through frame 309 (309 was the last frame available to the researcher). (Ronald Christensen, “A Preliminary Analysis of the Pictures of the Kennedy Assassination,” p. 69.)

5) Shaneyfelt, loc. cit.

6) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885. ‘Album of black and white photographs of frames from the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films,’” in Hearings, v. 18, pp. 1-80.

According to FBI Director Hoover, in a letter of Dec. 14, 1965, frames 314 and 315 were transposed in printing. Visually, it appears to reverse the direction of the head movement.

7) In a few of the more sophisticated available copies, splice marks were retouched out. A 16 mm version contained evidence of only one splice.

8) In a few of the more sophisticated copies, color change was consistent throughout the film A 16 mm version, in the Life magazine photo library, is of excellent quality, containing consistent color throughout. This copy, however, does contain evidence of a splice between frames 156-157.

9) Nix film. Muchmore film.

10) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

11) She stated, “And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. And then he sort of did that, put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap.” (President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Report of Proceedings, v. 48, June 5, 1964, p. 6814.)

12) Especially in Life magazine’s 4 x 5 transparency of this frame.

13) John Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 133.

Nellie Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 147.

Commission Document No. 188, p. 6.

Kellerman, op. cit., v. 2, pp. 74, 78.

In an interview with William R. Greer, Greer said, “…my back was covered with it.”

14) This area also displays optical enlargement, especially between frames 317 and 318 (magnification jumps from 1 to 1.3).

15) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

16) Modern Cinematographer, June 1969, pp. 566, 567, 568.

Note: Connally testified, “I had seem what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in hospital in Dallas.” (Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 145.)

17) Abraham Zapruder, Commission Document No. 7 [dated Dec. 4, 1963],” p. 12.

18) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

19) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 751.

20) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

21) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885,” op. cit., v. 18, p. 19.

Note: Life magazine later accepted the blame for this. It said that four frames “…had been accidentally destroyed by its photo lab technicians.” (New York Times, Jan. 30, 1967, p. 22.)

22) Commission Document No. 87, p. 434.

23) Interview with Orville O. Nix in film Rush to Judgment.

24) Commission Document No. 385, p. 70. FBI lab report says Nix’s camera was running at an average speed of 18.5 frames per second.

25) Marie Muchmore. Commission Document No. 735, pp. 124, 103.

26) Mary Moorman. Commission Document No. 5, p. 37.

John Wiseman, “Decker Exhibit No. 5323. ‘Supplementary Investigation Report dated Nov. 23, 1963,’ within Dallas County Sheriff’s Office record…” in Hearings, v. 19, pp. 535-536.

“Commission Exhibit No. 1426, ‘FBI report dated November 23, 1963, of interview of Mary Ann Moorman at Dallas, Tex. (CD 5, pp. 36-37),’” in Hearings, v. 22, p. 839.

27) “Commission Exhibit No. 1426,” loc. cit.

28) Interview with Jean L. Hill.

29) Ibid.

30) Philip L. Willis. Commission Document No. 1245, pp. 44-47.

31) Willis slide number five.

32) Altgens, op. cit., v. 7, p. 519.

33) ABC Television, Nov. 23, 9:00 a.m. Tom O’Brian, ABC News Director.

34) Of the amateurs, an 8 mm color film by Robert J. Hughes does show the depository with the limousine directly below the sixth floor “sniper’s nest.” The FBI examined this film and concluded there was no person in the window (Commission Document No. 205, p. 158.) In addition, “Itek Corporation, a photo-optical electronics firm, concluded the object in the window…was not a person.”

(Life, Nov. 24, 1967, p. 88.) A polaroid photo taken by Jack Weaver, who was standing near Hughes at Main and Houston Streets, was also examined by the FBI with the same negative results (Ibid., p. 175).

35) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 571.

36) Ibid.

37) J. Herbert Sawyer, “Testimony of J. Herbert Sawyer [dated April 8, 1964],’” in Hearings, v. 6, p. 324.

38) Forrest V. Sorrels, op. cit., v. 7, p. 352.

39) Commission Document No. 1014, “Sorrels memo to S.S. Chief Rowley and S.S. Inspector Tom Kelley [dated Jan. 22, 1964].”

40) Dallas Police Department, “Commission Document No. 705. ‘Channel 2’…” op. cit., v. 17, p. 482.

41) Sorrels, loc. cit.

42) Affidavit of P. M. Chamberlain, Jr., Production Supervisor, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

43) Letter of Abraham Zapruder to C.D. Jackson, Publisher, Life magazine, dated Nov. 25, 1963.

44) Affidavit of Frank R. Sloan, Laboratory Manager, Jamieson Film Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

45) Affidavit of Tom Nulty, Production Foreman, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

46) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 575.

47) Commission Document No. 87, “Max D. Phillips, Note of transmittal [undated] 9:55 p.m.”

According to Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, the disposition was “…one copy sent off to Washington and another given to Dallas police. Zapruder kept the original and one print…” (Richard B. Stolley, “What happened next…,” Esquire, November 1973, p. 135.)

48) Interview with Harry D. Holmes.

49) Inspector Kelley. Commission Document No. 1014, op. cit.

50) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138.

51) Agreement between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963.

52) Contract between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963.

Record of physical possession is confused. Zapruder’s agreement of Nov. 23, 1963, reads: “You [Life] agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print.” Life’s agent, Richard B. Stolley, claimed he “…picked up the original of the film and the one remaining copy…” after the agreement was signed. (Stolley, loc. cit.)

53) Ibid.

54) Life, Nov. 29, 1963, p. 24.

Time, Nov. 29, 1963, and Dec. 6, 1963, made no mention of the film although it printed four frames in the latter issue (pp. 33A, 33B.)

55) The issue dated for Nov. 29, 1963, was to have been on sale by Nov. 26, 1963. Although, according to Life, “The editors said that time limitations did not permit reproductions in color,” they also said “…they were unable last night [Nov. 23, 1963] to give precise details as to what the film showed but that they were assured that it depicted the impact of the bullets that struck Mr. Kennedy.” (New York Times, Nov. 24, 1963, p. 5.)

56) Life, Dec. 13, 1963. The Memorial issue is unpaginated.

57) Lifton (ed.), op. cit., p. 72.

58) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138.

59) Life, Oct. 2, 1964, pp. 43-46.

60) Researcher Paul Hoch determined that five versions were issued by Life by comparing the text and captions 3, 5, 6, and 8 on p. 42; picture 6 on p. 45; the text in column 2 and caption of line 3 on p. 47; and 4 captions, lines 1, 9, 13 and 18, on p. 48. Using this method, the authors discovered a sixth version. Vincent J. Salandria noted three versions (“A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes the Shots, Trajectories, and Wounds,” Liberation, January 1965, pp. 6-7.)

61) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit.

62) “Motion Pictures and Film Strips,” Catalog of Copyright Entries, Third Series, v. 21, pts. 12-13, no. 1, January-June 1967, p. 19. Though the film is at least 27 seconds in length, Life, on Oct. 2, 1964, described it as “…an eight second strip…” In the Catalog of Copyright Entries, in 1967, it is listed as 10 seconds in length (p. 42).

Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, claimed it was “…seven seconds of film” (Stolley, loc. cit.) He also said, “…in the beginning of the film…pictured some children at play…” (Ibid., p. 134), a sequence not shown on any film made available to the authors.

63) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit.

64) Emmett J. Hudson, “Testimony of Emmett J. Hudson [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 562.

65) An official use of the film, other than by the Warren Commission, was made by the CIA. It wanted to borrow the FBI’s copy”…for training purposes.” (J. Edgar Hoover, Letter of Dec. 4, 1964.)

66) Dallas Morning News, Nov. 26, 1963, Sect. 4, p. 7.

67) Agent John J. Howlett. Commission Document No. 5, p. 117.

68) “Commission Exhibit No. 585. ‘Surveyor’s plat of the Assassination Scene,’” in Hearings, v. 17, p. 262.

69) Ibid.

70) Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, pp. 105-109.

71) Ibid., p. 97.

Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 153.

“Commission Exhibit No. 2444. ‘FBI report of FBI Laboratory examination of various items relating to the assassination (CD 206, pp. 45-61),’” in Hearings, v. 25, p. 576.

72) Report of the President’s Commission, loc. cit.

[Craig Lamson]

Interesting. Like David, I have a long background in TV (including the end of the film era), and I'd like to give this some consideration.

The question of a film alteration technology being adequate in 1963 depends on the type of alteration one believes was used on this film in 1963. Greg, can you specify any particular type of alteration you believe was used on the Z-film? Is there any consensus among "alterationists" as to what type of alteration might have been used?

Another factor to consider is if such alteration could go undetected by both the public and by trained eyes.

I confess that I come at this as something of a skeptic, but I'm not closed-minded

In Horne's book, he mentions the following as likley techniques used: aerial imaging, cutting frames, painted mattes, and traveling mattes.

I don't think The Birds is a good comparison since the techniques used there are pretty detectable.

The Myers silent film clip is interesting. But the special effects used there were mostly done on isolated medium or close shots where you did not have to match up the altered footage into a much larger tableau. The Zapruder film is shot from one angle and distance. Therefore, the problem of matching with other parts of the film is to me of prime importance.

Unless you are going to say that the whole thing was redone.

Burnham is a "cartooner"