Jump to content
The Education Forum

NPIC Signposts Pointing to the Z-Film's Alteration

Recommended Posts

Excellent article... I'm not as deep into the Z film alteration debates as others, but (moving back to 1,000 feet) its always seemed a highly technical topic with too much acrimony. The past threads all too often became unprofessional food fights... one expert's credentials against anothers, credibilty and personal attacks. I agree with Mr. Lowe's comments, that such character attacks and vitriol reflect an insecurity and do little for the attacker's own credibility... a true "red flag". In my expeience, real experts have a humilty and openness to comment, and do not become defensive.

Horne's work is impressive and important. Although the provenance of the film is a story that's hard to follow, there certainly exists much debate about what it shows and tells us. I can't put my finger on it specifically... but there's something there, something that just doesn't add up, something that 'feels' funny. For me, the most telling aspects are the frames withheld from later TIME magazine issues, and the fact that it took almost 13 years for the public to even see the film. The magazine people sure moved quick to buy it, and then put it under wraps. Were it not for Garrison's trial and Groden/Rivera, we may never have seen it. Add to that the fact that there were other cameras in the Plaza that day (many of which were harvested by "sweepers" and withheld from disclosure) presents another strong argument that there was a planned 'event' that was protected by powerful organizations.

I wonder if there's an even better motion picture of this event in someone's vaullt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF Gary Mack says Horne's theories are "idiotic," and it would be good to get his exact quote, then he should do two things: apologize for the insulting language, and man up and give sound reasons why he disagrees with Horne. Otherwise, he comes off no better than a playground bully. Gary, tell us all on this forum what objections you have to Horne's work. Tell us where he is either misinformed, uninformed, or illogical, and please be quite specific. If you can't do that, either suspend judgment or confess he is correct. And please no private emails. Man up and back up these words, if in fact they are yours. Thanks in advance, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thanks John.

I have to admit I'm confused. Your .gif seems to show Hill lunging forward, he goes up, gets at least one foot on the rear bumper and at least one hand on the handrail but does not get the leverage he wanted to, and tries again, keeps his hand on the hand rail and pulls himself up and onto the rear of the presidential limousine.

So, I'm wondering why Wrone wrote that. By the way, it's chapter 3, not 4, page 47.

And he cites a letter from Hoover to Rankin, June 22, 1964. Serial 62-109060-3540.

Well, technicaslly he's right. It doesn't show the foot slip off while clearly providing sync points to other films that reinforce the interpretation that Hill does make two stepons in Zap. I guess, iow, it reinforces the idea that the zap film as kknown is authentic though of course there are obvious missing frames and odd splices. (I still think the head area in 324 is odd).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Rich Dellarosa is hearing this interview by Jim Maars of William Remon (sp?) from heaven. It gives one hope that the true nature of the shooting may yet surface before the rest of us die-- in the form of the "other film." All the eyewitness testimony to the limo stop has been explained away due to the bastard film at the Archives. It's time for the charade to end, and if it takes French intelligence to bring us the truth, mon Dieu, vive le France! (if I have said it correctly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Rich Dellarosa is hearing this interview by Jim Maars of William Remon (sp?) from heaven. It gives one hope that the true nature of the shooting may yet surface before the rest of us die-- in the form of the "other film." All the eyewitness testimony to the limo stop has been explained away due to the bastard film at the Archives. It's time for the charade to end, and if it takes French intelligence to bring us the truth, mon Dieu, vive le France! (if I have said it correctly).

A wind may yet blow through America, Daniel, don't despair

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Marrs posted the following on this website


in response to a query about Reymond from a poster by the name of ipsedixit

"Howdy ipsedixit,

Unfortunately, I have heard nothing further from William Reymond and his claim of obtaining an unedited version of the Zapruder film from a French intelligence agent except that Reymond told one researcher that his intelligence contact had been murdered and that he was dropping out of sight.

I wish I knew more.

Jim Marrs"

Oh how depressing! I do hope this Reymond character is on the up and up. All we need is another person seeking 15 minutes of fame. Sadly, if he was telling the truth and has had to drop out of sight, we ought to extend our well-wishes and prayers his way. If he really is in trouble, that itself speaks volumes. And he'll have my poor prayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been informed by Gary Mack that "Horne's alteration theories are idiotic."

Gary told me this quote is accurate. Mack believes stereoscopic viewing of the photography involved the in assassination/autopsy proves there is no alteration. I did a little search and came up with this:

In testimony to the HSCA, Calvin McCamy said that he, Frank Scott,

David Eisendrath, Bennett Sherman and "one of the professors at

RIT" (1HSCA176) examined the photos and found no evidence whatsoever

of forgery or alteration. Asked if it was possible that forgery could

have escaped detection, McCamy replied:

Yes, extremely unlikely. We have considered the possibilities

of various photographic techniques that could have been

used in a train of events to produce these photographs. Some

of them are virtually impossible because of the stereoviewing.

Others would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. (1HSCA179)

(emphasis mine)

McCamy had previously explained the principles of stereoscopic viewing

of the autopsy photos. Briefly, autopsy photographers tend to take

more than one photo from each location, in case a photo does not

turn out. John Stringer, the JFK autopsy photographer, followed this

procedure. The result is a series of photographs taken of the

same view from essentially identical locations.

Pairs of such photographs can be viewed through a stereoscopic viewer.

A 3D effect is achieved when the photos are viewed in this manner.

The additional depth perception allows the pathologists to get a better

view of the wounds and their relationship to body landmarks. For the

purposes of detecting forgery, this method is foolproof.

When 2 photos - particularly close-up photos which contain a great deal

of detail - are viewed stereoscopically, even minute differences seem to

literally "leap out" at the viewer. Is there a way to fool the

stereoscopic viewer? According to Frank Scott:

To successfully avoid detection of picture alteration

requires taht each picture of a pair of pictures be

altered identically, which is essentially impossible,

particularly with a stereo pair *** Any nonidentical

alteration of the pictures of a pair is readily noted

when pairs are viewed stereoscopically or microscopically.


And you have to keep doing this, photo pair after photo pair.

And each alteration must be done with steroscopic viewing

in mind. And with the hope that no one ever compares them

non-stereoscopically under a microscope. (the HFP photo experts did

this as well and still couldn't find any fakery)

The following pairs were viewed:

back of head (photos 42/43)

top of head (32/33 and 34/37)

skull defect (44/45)

head from front right (26/28)

back wound (38/39)

anterior neck wound (40/41)

There are many problems with this line of reasoning. The autopsy photos are of poor quality and seem designed to conceal as much as reveal. According to Stringer's earlier recollections, he took pictures which are not in the present collection. And I have problems with McCamy's claims himself. In Inside the ARRB, p. 291, Dr. Mantik is quoted as saying, when viewing the back of the head photos stereoscopically, that the are of the posterior scalp looked "two-dimensional," not 3-D. Says Horne, He (Mantik) said that he conducted stereo viewing with multiple types of images of the back of the head, namely, color positive transparencies, color prints and black and white prints. He said all of them yielded the same 'bizarre' 2-D effect in the area of the posterior scalp. He also told me he did not get this impression from stereo viewing of any of the other autopsy photograpghs." Later (883 ff) Horne backs off his support of Mantik and regards the back of the head as represented in the photo as a reconstruction after the FBI had left the morgue (883). Yet he relies on Mantik on the falsification of the x-rays; I find it inconsistent for him to dismiss Mantik's observations about the back of the head photo. Obviously it would be apprpriate for more experts to view the posterior scalp stereoscopically.

But if Horne's explanation is correct, that the large hole in Kennedy's right rear was concealed by scalp manipulation, then Mack's reliance upon stereo viewing is, as the Germans say "unanwenbar," or, besides the point. A dishonest representation of the way the body looked when it came from Parkland can be be created and photographed, and stereo viewing would be an irrelevant factor in determining the way Kennedy was killed.

Or take the gash in the neck: if this represents an enlargement of Perry's trach incision, as i believe it does, then pictures of a falsified wound would be no clue as to how Kennedy was shot, even viewed stereoscopically.

I do not know how stereo viewing would be relevant to the Z-film; someone with more expertise than I might chime in. But in the case of the autopsy photos, Gary Mack's reliance upon stereo viewing as the basis for calling Horne's theories "idiotic" may not be the wisest conclusion to be drawn.

Edited by Daniel Gallup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope someone else besides myself is interested in Horne's work. May I ask the photographic savants out there about the kinds of alteration that could be done to the Z-film and still fool the stereo viewer? Is this something readily done? Done with difficulty? Impossible? Hope someone out there reads this, and thanks in advance. Daniel

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...