DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

In case you haven't noticed, in the 44 years since you published SIX SECONDS (1967), the head wounds have been definitively clarified by David W. Mantik's studies of the X-rays in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and of the medical evidence in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), by Gary Aguilar's research on the descriptions of the head wound in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and most recently by Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB (2009).

For you to claim today, "as I've said once already, the Kennedy head wounds are an evidentiary mess and have nothing to do with what you are trying to prove... that the Zapruder film has been faked up", is completely disingenuous. Not only are the Kennedy head wounds no longer "an evidentiary mess" but the wound to the back of the head, which is visible in later frames, has been painted over in earlier frames. You have long since endorsed Gary Aguilar's work, yet

JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS:

THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS

FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT

by

Gary L. Aguilar, MD

San Francisco, California, August, 1994

If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem.

In the 44 years since SIX SECONDS (1967), you have had the time and opportunity to decide whether or not there was a massive defect to the back of the head. If you admit it, then your defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if you deny it, then your credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink? You can't accept Gary's work and still contend that "the Kennedy head wounds are an evidentiary mess" while denying concealing the blow-out was crucial to faking the film. You are playing a game of equivocation and obfuscation, where I am calling your bluff. The answer appears to be both!

"In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial."

You hopeless ninny! How many times do I have to explain that I am not denying that Kennedy had a hole in the back of the head. The Zapruder film doesn't show such a hole but even more importantly the Moorman film doesn't show it either. Why is that important? Because the Moorman photo was taken at Z 315 and was taken from closer in than the Zapruder film and from a much better angle... behind and to the left of the limousine. Neither the Zapruder nor the Moorman film show a hole in the back of his head. Are you now going to say that the Moorman photo was faked up. Good luck.

The fact that neither the Zapruder film nor the Moorman photo don't show a hole in the back of his head doesn't mean that there wasn't such a hole. The testimony from Parkland stands on its own feet. These are professionals performing their professional duty where accurate observation of wounds is critical. They are eminently believable.

However, as I've said once already, the Kennedy head wounds are an evidentiary mess and have nothing to do with what you are trying to prove... that the Zapruder film has been faked up. So quit putting up straw men expressing opnions I've never had nor ever expressed.

JT

Don, you are completely right! After his song-and-dance about Elizabeth Loftus, where he evidently either misunderstands the study she cites or deliberately misrepresents it, he ignores my simple question--which concerns the existence on non-existence of a massive defect at the back of his head--as well. Is there a pattern here?

In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial.

Abraham Lincoln observed that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. It is a very simple proposition: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Because if he admits there was, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he denies it, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink? Tell us.

Let me repeat the question in case it escaped his attention: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Remember, he was the first to publish the McClelland diagram in SIX SECONDS (1967), page 107. He seems to have understood then that it was from the occipital region of the cranium, which he diagrammed on page 101.

So surely in the 44 years since its publication, he has had the time and opportunity to decide whether or not there was a massive defect to the back of the head. Because if he admits there was, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he denies it, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink?

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.

Edited March 29, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Glenn Viklund]

Dear Mr Fetzer:

I am quite familiar with Mantik's studies. And so is TInk. As I said, they do not conflict with what I see on the Z film, or what Groden sees. You can yell and scream and cry about this point all you want. But it does not.

Bernice: Many times here, people have accused others of somehow being spooky or WC defenders if they do not buy into radical Z film alteration. We have seen it here on this forum right now. Tink answered the questions posed to him. That is not enough. Now, like Jim Angleton and Nosenko, Fetzer the Grand Inquisitor accuses him of evading questions etc. He has not. As per looking up things like the whole Moorman imbroglio, that is a perfect example of what I just said above: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That was not the case with that.

And BTW, this is a big difference between me and Fetzer. I mean he found the Nelson book convincing, he finds Best Evidence convincing, he bought into every thing in the Horne series. Let alone Judy Wood and No Planes etc. I don't. And I explain why I don't.

Third, now comes the so-called Real Z film viewings. I watched this phenomenon grow day by day on Rich's forum. At the end I sat there with my mouth agape. If you counted all the people who saw this Real Z film, it got into the tens of thousands. I am not kidding. For someone said they saw it on the late night news in a fairly big Texas town, maybe in San Antonio or somewhere like that.

So in other words, many, many,many people have seen this film, right? And not one media person ever wrote about it anywhere? Not even in the alternative press? No group of people ever called each other or met up to talk about what they saw? Really? When the Z film was shown by Rivera, the result was like an electric current going through the country: I mean it was Topic A at work and at lunch counters and water coolers. But people saw this film that no one had ever, ever seen and it showed the limo stopping, Kennedy going through all these gyrations of being hit with multiple shots--and God knows what other gory stuff, and everyone just goes to sleep like nothing happened.

Please.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it.

Jack

The conclusion still is that no hard proof of the existence of this "other" film has ever been brought forward?

What do you mean HARD PROOF? Seven witnesses in concord would be considered hard evidence in a court of law.

Jack

In this case, frames from this film would certainly be a good start. As Josiah and others points out, witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with lying. But the fact that there are only witness accounts for the existence of such a film is not convincing. As someone else said earlier in this thread, extra ordinary claims demands extra ordinary evidence. It is an understatement that the alleged contents of this "other" film are extra ordinary.

Moreover, I agree with Jim D. here. Had such a film been shown on television this would, of course, have created a sensation.

But perhaps you also have an idea as to why, for example, frames are so hard to get? Or why there seems to be such secrecy about this whole thing, still? Those things makes this even more suspicious.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Robin Unger]

I think this Groden scan is a good representation of the skull damage.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

As I pointed out in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), page 15, the Groden color-photos are fake. Compare the HSCA photos, which conceal the blow-out, with regard to both the length and texture of the hair. This deception was apparently intended to complement the autopsy report, which described a massive blow-out to the top as well as to the back of the head. David Lifton exposed this charade long ago in his BEST EVIDENCE (1980), which Jim DiEugenio still does not understand. I don't expect you to know these things, Robin, but we are at the very core of the deception about the wounds perpetrated by the autopsy pathologists.

There appears to be massive damage to the top & right side of the head.

This discrepancy was so glaring that, when the ARRB deposed Humes, he was asked if the patient had been given a shampoo and a hair cut during the autopsy, which led him to repond, "No, no, no, no, . . .", which you can find on page 447 of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), where I published the transcript in a version with annotations by David Mantik. The second photo that you present is also of great interest, because the wound to the throat observed at Parkland was a small, clean puncture would, which Malcolm Perry, M.D., described three times as a wound of entry. Charles Crenshaw diagramed it for me, which I published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) as Appendix A. I will see if I can scan it and add it here.

Edited March 29, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Robin,

As I pointed out in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), page 15, the Groden color-photos are fake.

Compare the HSCA photos, which conceal the blow-out, with regard to both the length and texture of the hair.

This deception was apparently intended to complement the autopsy report, which described a massive blow-

out to the top as well as to the back of the head. David Lifton exposed this charade long ago in his BEST

EVIDENCE (1980), which Jim DiEugenio still does not understand. I don't expect you to know these things,

Robin, but we are at the very core of the deception about the wounds perpetrated by the autopsy pathologists.

There appears to be massive damage to the top & right side of the head.

This discrepancy was so glaring that, when the ARRB deposed Humes, he was asked if the patient had

been given a shampoo and a hair cut during the autopsy, which led him to repond, "No, no, no, no, . . .",

which you can find on page 447 of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), where I published the transcript in

a version with annotations by David Mantik. The second photo that you present is also of great interest,

because the wound to the throat observed at Parkland was a small, clean puncture would, which Malcolm

Perry, M.D., described three times as a wound of entry. Charles Crenshaw diagramed it for me, which I

published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) as Appendix A. I will see if I can scan it and add it here.

Jim

I have posted on many forums over the years that i consider the HSCA back of the head photo as bogus.

It doesn't align with any of the other autopsy photo's.

This is why i asked earlier in the thread about the use of the RUBBER DAM.and if the hair had been washed

Edited March 29, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

If you look at this image closely you can see that there appears to be missing skull at the back of the head on the right hand side.

Pay close attention to the stirrup head rest , you can see straight through the hair, and see the curve of the head rest on the other side, and the towel.

if there was skull bone in that area, you wouln't be able to see the right hand side of the curved head rest or the towel.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim,

I was presenting Tink's shot scenario from THE SATURDAY EVENING POST (2 December 1967), because I

want to discuss whether or not he still believes it. When we turn to SIX SECONDS (1967), we do find him

saying that he has revised his original view that Oswald was guilty based upon other indications that he

might not have been on the 6th floor but around the 2nd floor lunchroom (pages 233-234). Tink says,

"I should point out that none of this information proves Oswald's innocence. What it does do is provide

a plausible alternative to the presumption of guilt." Which, in turn, would imply the existence of conspiracy!

But in the final paragraph on his book (page 246), Tink denies that the information presented in his book

establishes the existence of a conspiracy: "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does

not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor

of the Depository at the time the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What

it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead

of being swept under the Archives rug. It also shows that the question of Oswald's guilt must remain--

nearly four years after the event--still unanswered."

This paragraph so enraged Vincent Salandria that he has made no secret of his inference that Tink is not

on the up-and-up. My point is much simpler. It has now been forty-four years since he published SIX

SECONDS (1967). Does he still believe that the question of Oswald's innocence remains unanswered? or that

the existence of a conspiracy has not been proven? Notice that if there was a shot from the front, then the

existence of a conspiracy has been proven. And if the film has been faked, then the existence of another

conspiracy--to cover-up the true causes of the death of our 35th president--has also been proven! I think

the time is now for Tink to come clean about where he really stands, because the signs are rather disturbing.

Robin:

Really nice job.

I don't see what is so hard to believe about Hill making up that space from that angle.

Secondly, Fetzer says that is SSD TInk wrote that LHO shot at JFK twice.

Can you please furnish page citations, as any scholar would if he were saying something like that.

Third, this whole thing about the motorcycle has been talked to death here. From the photographic evidence I have seen, it does not do what Fetzer says it does. He is now recycling old arguments that did not take in the first place.

Edited March 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

You are right IF YOU MEAN that it is a good representation of what the Bethesda physicians told us. Have you missed the boat on the studies by Mantik and by Aguilar and by Horne that demonstrate this is NOT ACCURATE as to what the wound ACTUALLY LOOKED LIKE? Go back over the images I have posted on this thread. And if you think the Groden photo is fake, why would you believe this? All of the evidence is against it.

We have the consistent reports from witnesses in Dealey Plaza, the physicians at Parkland, and many other sources, including from Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician. NONE OF THEM SUPPORT THIS DEPICTION OF THE DAMAGE TO THE CRANIUM. As Doug Horne explains, Robinson actually watched while Humes took a saw to the head and enlarged the wound! What do you think you are talking about?

I think this Groden scan is a good representation of the skull damage.

Edited March 29, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

I think this Groden scan is a good representation of the skull damage.

Robin...that xray depiction show's Lifton's SURGERY OF THE TOP OF THE HEAD, not the damage

seen at Parkland.

Jack

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

And if you think the Groden photo is fake, why would you believe this?

Because the photo doesn't show any skull damage at all at the back of the skull, lower down from the hinged flap, and it should, we should see a large wound in the area behind the right ear.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

Compare the Crenshaw diagrams, which appear to be quite accurate of the wound before and after the tracheostomy, which was confirmed by Malcolm Perry during the Parkland press conference, with what you have from Bethesda, which I also published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000):

This is one of the principal reasons David Lifton concluded that their had either been surgery to the body or the photos had been faked. If this photo is genuine, then the throat wound has been greatly expanded by surgery to the body; and we already know that Humes performed surgery to the head, which was witnessed by Thomas Evan Robinson and yet another person who was also there. Lifton's stunning theory about surgery to the body has been proven true, as INSIDE THE ARRB (2009) leaves no doubt. Jim DiEugenio, I am sorry to say, has demonstrated his incompetence regarding the medical, the ballistic, and the photographic evidence. For him to be publishing a trash review of Horne for admiring Lifton, when the research of the ARRB showed he (Lifton) was right, is simply absurd! It is unfortunate that Jim continues to involves himself when he is so very ignorant.

Edited March 29, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Reymond tried to arrange for me to view it years ago during a visit to Paris, but the owner backed out, alas.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it. How can someone who did NOT

see the film dispute those who did?

Jack

Then what is it Jack? Is it another film that no one knows was taken? Was it by the Babushka lady? I doubt it since her film was from the opposite angle. Anyone would have known it.

I am not ridiculing anyone. Especially Mili Cranor, who I have the highest respect for--and who you choose not to mention.

I posed a truthful situation. Which I stood by and watched on Rich's forum. Person after person-not Mili-- began to say that they saw this "other film", which you do not want to say was the real Z film, but I do not know what else it can be. Until finally someone said they saw it on TV, the late night news in a fairly big Texas town.

I was kind of taken aback by this chain reaction which culminated in tens of thousands of people seeing this "other film". And yet no one had ever written a word about this event. And yet even though this film was supposed to be buried for national security cover up purposes, it was somehow not.

Now, how did it slip out so often and in so many places?

Second, if it is not the Real Z film, then what is it?

I answered that. It is NOT the "real Z film". It is ANOTHER FILM or THE OTHER FILM. They are reported to be so different they CANNOT be the same.

I purposely did not mention Mili Cranor. She was the researcher who visited the network. Few know of her Fourth Decade article.

Dan Marvin is the person who saw it at a CIA training facility. William Reymond, French journalist, was shown the film multiple times by a

retired French intelligence agent, who told him it was the HL Hunt copy of the Zapruder film...but Reymond's description matched THE OTHER FILM,

not the Z film. Rich DellaRosa's description is the most detailed, because he saw it three times UNDER CLASSIFIED CONDITIONS (when he was on

active duty). Others who saw the OTHER FILM under different conditions are, as I recall, Greg Burnham, Scott Myers, and Rick Janowitz.

All of these people described the same film, including the limo making a wide turn from Houston, and the limo coming to a stop of about 2 seconds

during the head shot. What are the odds of ALL of these people lying or being mistaken about the same details?

Jack

Edited March 29, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

I think this Groden scan is a good representation of the skull damage.

Robin...that xray depiction show's Lifton's SURGERY OF THE TOP OF THE HEAD, not the damage

seen at Parkland.

Jack

Thanks Jack

I am trying to concentrate on the Bethesda autopsy images after Parkland .

there well may have been surgery performed on the scalp in order to extract the brain. ( I recall reading that in the ARRB medical testimony some years ago )

Edited March 29, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

I will post more on the throat wound tomorrow ( I need some sleep )

In a large blowup of the throat wound i did a few years ago, you could distinguish the "round bullet hole" shape in the centre of the butchery done to the throat.

this would be what the parkland doctors saw

I will post some throat wound images tomorrow.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It never ceases to astound me how many otherwise sophisticated individuals, who often post on this and on other forums, have no idea about the basic elements of the medical evidence. Here is an overview of how all the evidence fits together: "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dealey-plaza-revisited.html I am going to return to some of the important evidence presented here exonerating Oswald as a shooter, which demonstrate clearly that he was framed, when it would not have been necessary to frame a guilty man. In fact, as I explained there, his weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, he was not on the 6th floor when the assassination took place, and Marina, his wife, reported that he admired JFK and bore him no malice. So the man who was fingered for the crime by the Warren Commission had neither the means, the motive, or the opportunity to have committed it. Yet Josiah Thompson is STILL not convinced whether or not Oswald was one of the shooters? How could an expert on the assassination still not know, 44 years after the publication of SIX SECONDS (1967)? What is there not to know?

Even Robin Unger does not seem to understand the most basic aspects of the medical evidence, which David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE (1980), explained more than 30 years ago. I realize that Jim DiEugenio has no idea what Lifton was talking about and therefore trashed Horne when he reported that the results of the ARRB confirmed his (Lifton's) basic findings about the theft of the body, its early arrival at Bethesda, the alteration of the body and the fake autopsy report. Anyone with a serious interest in this case has to understand the gross differences in the descriptions of the wound to the back of the head from Parkland (where it was around 3" in diameter at the back of the head and slightly to the right), from Bethesda (where it had grown into an enormous wound taking up most of the skull, where the earlier blow-out was now the heel of a footprint), and during the HSCA reinvestigation (where the wound mysteriously contracts and now we have only a small hole at the top of the head at the crown or "cowlick", which is visible on the HSCA diagram I have posted but not in the HSCA photograph). Lifton's sketch of the differences appears below:

I will post more on the throat wound tomorrow ( I need some sleep )

In a large blowup of the throat wound i did a few years ago, you could distinguish the "round bullet hole" shape in the centre of the butchery done to the throat.

this would be what the parkland doctors saw

I will post some throat wound images tomorrow.

Edited March 29, 2011 by James H. Fetzer