Two Head Shots and the Zapruder Film

[Roger Odisio]

I think research arguing there were two, not one, headshots close together that killed JFK is arguably the most important development in recent memory.  If proven, by itself it would blow up the WR.

 

Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar and Bill Simpich made the two shot argument at the Duquesne conference last month, meticulously going through the Zapruder film frame by frame to identify each shot.

 

Problem is, the Zapruder film was altered starting at the CIA's Hawkeye Works lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester NY the weekend of the murder.  A few months ago I posted a detailed account of that alteration. 

 

That alteration almost certainly focused on the head shots. There was no doubt about their importance to the WR story.

 

When viewing the original film to make the first set of briefing boards, Dino Brugioni described an incredible, mostly white, spray of bone, blood and tissue shooting several feet in the air and lasting multiple frames on Zapruder.  The extant film shows only a mostly pink flash lasting only one frame 

 

A month ago on his blog, insidethearrb, Doug Horne discussed again Zapruder alteration. He concentrated on 3 alterations, to: (1) obscure and cover up the large occipital-parietal exit wound in the right rear of JFK's head; (2) optically excise much of the exit debris flying through the air that would have blatantly revealed multiple head shots from different directions; and (3) remove the brief and sudden stop of JFK's limousine, lasting between .5 and 1.5 seconds.

 

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/21299.html

 

He focused mainly on the removal of the limousine stop, but his analysis applies to all three alterations. 

 

Horne asserts that the original film "would have blatantly revealed multiple head shots from different directions".  

 

Robert Groden was at Duquesne arguing Zapruder was not altered. I asked him remotely what did he think was done at Hawkeye Works that weekend. He completely dissembled, simply repeating his claim that Brugioni had not seen the original.  And avoiding my question.

 

Seems like Horne and the Duquesne group, all experts on this information, need to put their heads together to come up with one story.  It's a very important story.

 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I think research arguing there were two, not one, headshots close together that killed JFK is arguably the most important development in recent memory.  If proven, by itself it would blow up the WR.

 

Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar and Bill Simpich made the two shot argument at the Duquesne conference last month, meticulously going through the Zapruder film frame by frame to identify each shot.

 

Problem is, the Zapruder film was altered starting at the CIA's Hawkeye Works lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester NY the weekend of the murder.  A few months ago I posted a detailed account of that alteration. 

 

That alteration almost certainly focused on the head shots. There was no doubt about their importance to the WR story.

 

When viewing the original film to make the first set of briefing boards, Dino Brugioni described an incredible, mostly white, spray of bone, blood and tissue shooting several feet in the air and lasting multiple frames on Zapruder.  The extant film shows only a mostly pink flash lasting only one frame 

 

A month ago on his blog, insidethearrb, Doug Horne discussed again Zapruder alteration. He concentrated on 3 alterations, to: (1) obscure and cover up the large occipital-parietal exit wound in the right rear of JFK's head; (2) optically excise much of the exit debris flying through the air that would have blatantly revealed multiple head shots from different directions; and (3) remove the brief and sudden stop of JFK's limousine, lasting between .5 and 1.5 seconds.

 

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/21299.html

 

He focused mainly on the removal of the limousine stop, but his analysis applies to all three alterations. 

 

Horne asserts that the original film "would have blatantly revealed multiple head shots from different directions".  

 

Robert Groden was at Duquesne arguing Zapruder was not altered. I asked him remotely what did he think was done at Hawkeye Works that weekend. He completely dissembled, simply repeating his claim that Brugioni had not seen the original.  And avoiding my question.

 

Seems like Horne and the Duquesne group, all experts on this information, need to put their heads together to come up with one story.  It's a very important story.

 

Excuse my confusion... Are you claiming Brugioni worked at Hawkeye Works? Because I'm pretty sure Hawkeye Works was something cooked up by Lifton and that there's no evidence the Z-film was taken there... To my recollection Brugioni worked at the NPIC, which studied the SS's copy of the film on behalf the CIA. As I remember it, the Rockefeller Commission obtained the charts created by Brugioni, which he decades later disavowed, claiming the film shown to him was a different film or some such thing. Am I incorrect in my recollection?

P.S. The star expert for the Zapruder film is fake crowd was for many years John Costella. He was at one time a member of this forum. In any event, Costella concluded the film was either entirely real or entirely fake, and that no edits were performed to hide a limo stop, etc. Now here's what you may not realize...that when Fetzer started buddying up to Horne and pushing Horne's theories of mass alteration to hide this and conceal that, etc, Costella walked away from it all and even said things indicating he thought Horne was a disinformation agent designed to make the research community look stupid. In sum, then, you might want to read what Costella has written on the Z-film before embracing Horne's theories.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Nick Bartetzko]

I haven’t seen Thompson’s presentation on that in quite a while, but isolating the video on JFK and Connally individually at around Z 328 or so was very persuasive. 
I believe I’ve seen a version of Nix that depicts what could be headshot debris exiting rearward. Whether that’s an artifact of the film copy or not, I have no idea. But the timing would be very coincidental. 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Excuse my confusion... Are you claiming Brugioni worked at Hawkeye Works? Because I'm pretty sure Hawkeye Works was something cooked up by Lifton and that there's no evidence the Z-film was taken there... To my recollection Brugioni worked at the NPIC, which studied the SS's copy of the film on behalf the CIA. As I remember it, the Rockefeller Commission obtained the charts created by Brugioni, which he decades later disavowed, claiming the film shown to him was a different film or some such thing. Am I incorrect in my recollection?

P.S. The star expert for the Zapruder film is fake crowd was for many years John Costella. He was at one time a member of this forum. In any event, Costello concluded the film was either entirely real or entirely fake, and that no edits were performed to hide a limo stop, etc. Now here's what you may not realize...that when Fetzer started buddying up to Horne and pushing Horne's theories of mass alteration to hide this and conceal that, etc, Costella walked away from it all and even said things indicating he thought Horne was a disinformation agent designed to make the research community look stupid. In sum, then, you might want to read what Costella has written on the Z-film before embracing Horne's theories.

Yes, Pat you are confused.

 

PS  Excuse my confusion... Are you claiming Brugioni worked at Hawkeye Works? Because I'm pretty sure Hawkeye Works was something cooked up by Lifton and that there's no evidence the Z-film was taken there... To my recollection Brugioni worked at the NPIC, which studied the SS's copy of the film on behalf the CIA. As I remember it, the Rockefeller Commission obtained the charts created by Brugioni, which he decades later disavowed, claiming the film shown to him was a different film or some such thing. Am I incorrect in my recollection?

 

RO  The only thing you got right is that Dino Brugioni worked at the National Photo Interpretation Center, for the CIA.  He created briefing boards starting Saturday night from the original Zapruder.  The purpose of his briefing boards was to facilitate the alterations done at Hawkeye Works on Sunday, where the film was subsequently taken, by blowing up key frames.  After the film was altered, a second set of boards was created by others later on Sunday. The second set are the boards currently at NARA.

 

Hawkeye Works existed, Pat.   At that time it was a classified CIA lab (even the name, Hawkeye Works, was classified until 2010).  Not something cooked up by Lifton!

 

When JFKA investigations were reopened in the 70s, Brugioni told his supervisor he still had a copy of his boards in his safe. The supervisor blew up for obvious reasons and ordered him the get rid of them.  Which he did.

 

Brugioni disavowed nothing about what he did.  He did not even know about the second set of boards until Peter Janney told him in 2009, and Horne followed it up with a detailed interview in 2011.  Horne also interviewed the two fellows who did the second set of boards (who didn't know about Brugioni's set) to get the full story.  Are you getting it Pat?

 

You obviously haven't seen Horne's interview of Brugioni.  Here it is.

 

Watch as Brugioni gradually realizes the full scope of how he was taken advantage of that weekend and what it all means.

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

I haven’t seen Thompson’s presentation on that in quite a while, but isolating the video on JFK and Connally individually at around Z 328 or so was very persuasive. 
I believe I’ve seen a version of Nix that depicts what could be headshot debris exiting rearward. Whether that’s an artifact of the film copy or not, I have no idea. But the timing would be very coincidental. 

To be fair the Thompson group did a fine job tracing the debris from the head shots. Most of it went at considerable velocity back and to the left, hitting a couple of motorcycle cops in the process, among other things.

 

Plus I think they touched on the acoustic evidence showing there were two, close together shots at the end and more than three in total. 

 

They didn't rely solely on analysis Zapruder. 

 

There also was a detailed presentation at Duquesne by Donald Thomas about the acoustic evidence backing up what the group said earlier. Thomas thinks there were 5 shots--the first three, then a 5 second gap followed by two more within a second of each other--including one from the grassy knoll.

[Miles Massicotte]

I think the point that Pat Speer frequently makes here still stands: the Zapruder film as it stands appears to show evidence of a conspiracy (even though, as I understand his theory on his website, Speer himself believes that all shots were from the rear. For what it is worth, since this thread is about the two head shots hypothesis, I think he makes the best and most coherent argument for it, in my highly non-expert opinion).

The fact remains that the average schlub like myself who sees the Zapruder film and the back and to the left motion of Kennedy's head sees that and thinks "gee that looks like a shot from the front". Why then would conspirators who altered the film leave it looking like that? I have heard it argued frequently by alterationists that the back and to the left motion is an "artifact" of alteration, but I haven't seen a decent explain of how such an "artifact" could occur. 

I have looked into Horne and his revelations with Brugioni extensively. I was drawn to Brugioni's recollections because he was one of the top photoanalysts in the world. Horne et al. cite this frequently as evidence for the credibility of Brugioni's recollections about the content of the Zapruder film. I disagree. I tend to agree about Hawkeye works, the two separate briefing board events, and etc. I disagree about Brugioni's recollection about the white mist, that it lasted longer than one frame, and the content/imagery of the Zapruder film itself. I think it is perfectly valid to question Brugioni's recollection of a few frames of a film he wasn't asked about until about 40 years later. I put him in the same category as the rest of the people who have claimed to have seen the "original" Zapruder film. Most people would have a faulty memory of a few frames of film they saw one time 40 years ago. Making Brugioni's recollection some kind of proof of alteration is not credible.

Personally, I do tend to give some credence Brugioni's other recollections, but I think it is possible that they have an alternate explanation, namely that certain organizations like those who controlled Hawkeye works wanted information about Zapruder's film. It is perfectly reasonable, given what we know now about the CIA's (or elements thereof's) likely involvement with the assassination that someone "in the know" would want to have this info quickly, quietly, and covertly. 

So while the thrust of Roger's post I believe to be correct, namely that we should be looking for two head shots, I think that they most likely exist already somewhere in the extant Z-film, as it is not altered.

[Bill Brown]

8 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I think research arguing there were two, not one, headshots close together that killed JFK is arguably the most important development in recent memory.  If proven, by itself it would blow up the WR.

 

Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar and Bill Simpich made the two shot argument at the Duquesne conference last month, meticulously going through the Zapruder film frame by frame to identify each shot.

 

Problem is, the Zapruder film was altered starting at the CIA's Hawkeye Works lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester NY the weekend of the murder.  A few months ago I posted a detailed account of that alteration. 

 

That alteration almost certainly focused on the head shots. There was no doubt about their importance to the WR story.

 

When viewing the original film to make the first set of briefing boards, Dino Brugioni described an incredible, mostly white, spray of bone, blood and tissue shooting several feet in the air and lasting multiple frames on Zapruder.  The extant film shows only a mostly pink flash lasting only one frame 

 

A month ago on his blog, insidethearrb, Doug Horne discussed again Zapruder alteration. He concentrated on 3 alterations, to: (1) obscure and cover up the large occipital-parietal exit wound in the right rear of JFK's head; (2) optically excise much of the exit debris flying through the air that would have blatantly revealed multiple head shots from different directions; and (3) remove the brief and sudden stop of JFK's limousine, lasting between .5 and 1.5 seconds.

 

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/21299.html

 

He focused mainly on the removal of the limousine stop, but his analysis applies to all three alterations. 

 

Horne asserts that the original film "would have blatantly revealed multiple head shots from different directions".  

 

Robert Groden was at Duquesne arguing Zapruder was not altered. I asked him remotely what did he think was done at Hawkeye Works that weekend. He completely dissembled, simply repeating his claim that Brugioni had not seen the original.  And avoiding my question.

 

Seems like Horne and the Duquesne group, all experts on this information, need to put their heads together to come up with one story.  It's a very important story.

 

 

"I think research arguing there were two, not one, headshots close together that killed JFK is arguably the most important development in recent memory.  If proven, by itself it would blow up the WR.

 

Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar and Bill Simpich made the two shot argument at the Duquesne conference last month, meticulously going through the Zapruder film frame by frame to identify each shot."

 

Interesting.  Let's discuss.

 

"Problem is, the Zapruder film was altered..."

 

Never mind.

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Yes, Pat you are confused.

 

PS  Excuse my confusion... Are you claiming Brugioni worked at Hawkeye Works? Because I'm pretty sure Hawkeye Works was something cooked up by Lifton and that there's no evidence the Z-film was taken there... To my recollection Brugioni worked at the NPIC, which studied the SS's copy of the film on behalf the CIA. As I remember it, the Rockefeller Commission obtained the charts created by Brugioni, which he decades later disavowed, claiming the film shown to him was a different film or some such thing. Am I incorrect in my recollection?

 

RO  The only thing you got right is that Dino Brugioni worked at the National Photo Interpretation Center, for the CIA.  He created briefing boards starting Saturday night from the original Zapruder.  The purpose of his briefing boards was to facilitate the alterations done at Hawkeye Works on Sunday, where the film was subsequently taken, by blowing up key frames.  After the film was altered, a second set of boards was created by others later on Sunday. The second set are the boards currently at NARA.

 

Hawkeye Works existed, Pat.   At that time it was a classified CIA lab (even the name, Hawkeye Works, was classified until 2010).  Not something cooked up by Lifton!

 

When JFKA investigations were reopened in the 70s, Brugioni told his supervisor he still had a copy of his boards in his safe. The supervisor blew up for obvious reasons and ordered him the get rid of them.  Which he did.

 

Brugioni disavowed nothing about what he did.  He did not even know about the second set of boards until Peter Janney told him in 2009, and Horne followed it up with a detailed interview in 2011.  Horne also interviewed the two fellows who did the second set of boards (who didn't know about Brugioni's set) to get the full story.  Are you getting it Pat?

 

You obviously haven't seen Horne's interview of Brugioni.  Here it is.

 

Watch as Brugioni gradually realizes the full scope of how he was taken advantage of that weekend and what it all means.

 

 

So Brugioni did not work at Hawkeye Works, and there's no evidence the film was ever taken to Hawkeye Works, right? So I am correct in that Lifton figured out there was a CIA lab called Hawkeye works and "guessed" that the film was taken there. Is that right? If not, well, then, where is the evidence it was taken there? 

I am sorry to be a pain but a lot of this stuff was debunked by Thompson years ago. As stated, the supposedly top expert on the Z-film embraced by Fetzer in the Z-film hoax book dismissed Lifton and Horne's musings. As I recall, moreover, the problem with the editing this out and editing this in theories is that there are ghost images on the far side of the sprocket holes that connect the frames together, and that these are only viewable on the original film, not the FBI and SS copies. 

Well, guess what, the NPIC storyboards fail to have the sprocket hole images, because, because, they never had the original film. I think that's one of Groden's points, by the way. Somewhere somehow he received a copy of the SS copy, which had all the frames as none were stupidly cut off by Life. And this film matched up precisely with the intact frames of the original as published by the WC. 

 

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Miles Massicotte writes:

Quote

the Zapruder film as it stands appears to show evidence of a conspiracy ... Why then would conspirators who altered the film leave it looking like that?

Good question. If the film actually contained evidence that shots were fired from more than one direction, or that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets, or that the car's progress along Elm Street allowed insufficient time for a lone gunman to fire three shots from the poor-quality sixth-floor rifle, there was no need to go to all the bother of altering the film. All that was needed was to accidentally lose or destroy the film. Whoops! Accidents happen!

But the film does in fact contain all of those incriminating elements. Was it altered in order to incorporate those elements? I suspect not. The claim that the film we see today is the result of alteration to cover up evidence of conspiracy, yet still contains evidence of conspiracy, makes no sense. It requires a large helping of special pleading: ah, but they didn't have time to do a proper job, and they forgot to remove everything, and they didn't have the right equipment, and they weren't able to destroy the film because ... um ... I'll get back to you about that.

To claim that the film contains evidence of conspiracy and was altered to remove evidence of conspiracy really is a very silly claim.

Quote

I think it is perfectly valid to question Brugioni's recollection of a few frames of a film he wasn't asked about until about 40 years later. I put him in the same category as the rest of the people who have claimed to have seen the "original" Zapruder film.

Of course, there is a good chance that recollections of an event that took place four decades earlier will be inaccurate in some way.

The main problem here isn't that Brugioni's four-decades-old recollections have been taken seriously but that Douglas Horne's far-fetched scenario based on those claims has been taken seriously. Horne has a record of believing and promoting crazy stuff, such as Lifton's body-alteration nonsense.

One person who has taken the time to debunk Horne's interpretation of Brugioni's recollections is Roland Zavada. See this reply to Horne, in particular pages 15 onwards:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

Anyone who still thinks that the Zapruder film might have been altered needs to read the whole of Zavada's reply to Horne. Zavada, who knows what he is talking about since he helped to create the Kodachrome film that Zapruder used, takes Horne's claim to pieces. He concludes (on page 32):

Quote

Your interviews with Dino Brugioni and Homer McMahon and their handling of what they interpreted as 'original' films, most likely were the Jamieson copies provided to the Secret Service by Zapruder and flown to Washington on successive days. (With the FBI requesting two copies, returned to Dallas, of their viewed double 8 copy.)

Nonetheless, your analysis of those interviews and the conclusions you draw about the briefing boards have provided a tight focus to establish the time frame and possible venue for the purported 'sanitizing' of the Zapruder original. Both reinforce all of the technology and film reproduction constraints to confirm our conclusion that alteration to the 8mm original and its reconstitution, as a 'sanitized' KODACHROME II equivalent, was impossible.

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

I am sorry to be a pain but a lot of this stuff was debunked by Thompson years ago.

Indeed it was. See also this two-part essay by Thompson:

• https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html
• https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_2.html

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

To claim that the film contains evidence of conspiracy and was altered to remove evidence of conspiracy really is a very silly claim.

As always, words of wisdom from Jeremy. There was no significant alteration to the film beyond the known damaged frames.

[Paul Bacon]

I can't believe there is still any debate about Dino Brugioni's memories or credibility.  His memories are clear, as would be anyone's recollections of a horrifying and impressive event shown in a film.  He was amazed, at the time, of the cloud of brain matter that shot into the air.

Did he also mis-remember having, in the middle of the night, to wake up a film equipment supplier to provide an 8 mm film projector?  Has anyone here even seen the video interview Doug Horne did with Brugioni where, in real time, Brugioni discovers that there were two NPIC events?

In my view, the two NPIC events make complete sense, when one understands that the first one was done to provide an expert opinion on what was actually seen in the film, and that the second one was done to see if the altered version would pass muster.

The existing copy at NARA clearly shows alteration when scrutinized.  Yes, there were at least two shots to Kennedy's head--one from behind (Z312), and another, instantaneously, from the front (Z313) which throws Kennedy back and left.

[Roger Odisio]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So Brugioni did not work at Hawkeye Works, and there's no evidence the film was ever taken to Hawkeye Works, right? So I am correct in that Lifton figured out there was a CIA lab called Hawkeye works and "guessed" that the film was taken there. Is that right? If not, well, then, where is the evidence it was taken there? 

I am sorry to be a pain but a lot of this stuff was debunked by Thompson years ago. As stated, the supposedly top expert on the Z-film embraced by Fetzer in the Z-film hoax book dismissed Lifton and Horne's musings. As I recall, moreover, the problem with the editing this out and editing this in theories is that there are ghost images on the far side of the sprocket holes that connect the frames together, and that these are only viewable on the original film, not the FBI and SS copies. 

Well, guess what, the NPIC storyboards fail to have the sprocket hole images, because, because, they never had the original film. I think that's one of Groden's points, by the way. Somewhere somehow he received a copy of the SS copy, which had all the frames as none were stupidly cut off by Life. And this film matched up precisely with the intact frames of the original as published by the WC. 

 

 

 

PS:  So Brugioni did not work at Hawkeye Works, and there's no evidence the film was ever taken to Hawkeye Works, right? So I am correct in that Lifton figured out there was a CIA lab called Hawkeye works and "guessed" that the film was taken there. Is that right? If not, well, then, where is the evidence it was taken there? 

 

RO: Wrong and wrong.  You didn't watch the video I posted with my reply did you, Pat?  You'll find the evidence from Bugioni there.  It has nothing to do with Lifton.

  

Brugioni explains how two "Secret Service agents" arrived at NPIC Saturday night with what  he believes was the Zapruder original.  The story that the film had been sent directly to Chicago, after Life bought some rights to it, to begin preparing some frames for their magazine is false.  

 

The agents took the film as Brugioni was finishing the boards and flew it early Sunday morning to Hawkeye Works.  Hawkeye Works was a then secret CIA lab, where as Brugioni said, they had the best equipment in the world.  

 

The film was returned Sunday night to NPIC by another "SS Agent", this one comically named "Bill Smith", where he directed a second set of boards to be made unbeknownst to Brugioni.  Brugioni's boards from the original film were later destroyed.  And the second set of boards now resides at NARA.

 

What do you suppose they did with the film at Hawkeye Works? Why was the film sent there?  Seems obvious doesn't it? They knew the film contradicted their Oswald story.  Unfortunately there was only so much they could do to it. Which is why Life went back to Zapruder that Sunday, gave him another $100,000, and buried it from the public for 12 years while their Oswald story took hold. 

 

I asked Groden questions about Hawkeye Works at Duquesne and he dodged them.  He simply repeated his claim that Brugioni didn't see the original as if he misunderstood the question. 

 

PS:  I am sorry to be a pain but a lot of this stuff was debunked by Thompson years ago. As stated, the supposedly top expert on the Z-film embraced by Fetzer in the Z-film hoax book dismissed Lifton and Horne's musings. As I recall, moreover, the problem with the editing this out and editing this in theories is that there are ghost images on the far side of the sprocket holes that connect the frames together, and that these are only viewable on the original film, not the FBI and SS copies. 

 

RO:  Can you direct me to Thompson's debunking?  What stuff exactly did he debunk? 

 

I'm not talking about "musings" by Horne.  I'm talking about the information supplied to Horne by Brugioni and Homer McMahon and his helper whose name I always forget (who produced the second set of boards on Sunday) about what happened with the films they worked on.

 

PS;  Well, guess what, the NPIC storyboards fail to have the sprocket hole images, because, because, they never had the original film. I think that's one of Groden's points, by the way. Somewhere somehow he received a copy of the SS copy, which had all the frames as none were stupidly cut off by Life. And this film matched up precisely with the intact frames of the original as published by the WC.

 

RO:  By NPIC boards I presume you mean the second set now at NARA. Well guess what?  Those boards were not from the original film, but the altered version returned from Hawkeye Works. 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

10 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"I think research arguing there were two, not one, headshots close together that killed JFK is arguably the most important development in recent memory.  If proven, by itself it would blow up the WR.

 

Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar and Bill Simpich made the two shot argument at the Duquesne conference last month, meticulously going through the Zapruder film frame by frame to identify each shot."

 

Interesting.  Let's discuss.

 

"Problem is, the Zapruder film was altered..."

 

Never mind.

 

 

 

Brilliant, Bill.  And so clever.  A closed mind posing as wisdom.

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Paul Bacon said:

I can't believe there is still any debate about Dino Brugioni's memories or credibility.  His memories are clear, as would be anyone's recollections of a horrifying and impressive event shown in a film.  He was amazed, at the time, of the cloud of brain matter that shot into the air.

Did he also mis-remember having, in the middle of the night, to wake up a film equipment supplier to provide an 8 mm film projector?  Has anyone here even seen the video interview Doug Horne did with Brugioni where, in real time, Brugioni discovers that there were two NPIC events?

In my view, the two NPIC events make complete sense, when one understands that the first one was done to provide an expert opinion on what was actually seen in the film, and that the second one was done to see if the altered version would pass muster.

The existing copy at NARA clearly shows alteration when scrutinized.  Yes, there were at least two shots to Kennedy's head--one from behind (Z312), and another, instantaneously, from the front (Z313) which throws Kennedy back and left.

Would love to have viewed those still photos:

[Roger Odisio]

14 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

I think the point that Pat Speer frequently makes here still stands: the Zapruder film as it stands appears to show evidence of a conspiracy (even though, as I understand his theory on his website, Speer himself believes that all shots were from the rear. For what it is worth, since this thread is about the two head shots hypothesis, I think he makes the best and most coherent argument for it, in my highly non-expert opinion).

The fact remains that the average schlub like myself who sees the Zapruder film and the back and to the left motion of Kennedy's head sees that and thinks "gee that looks like a shot from the front". Why then would conspirators who altered the film leave it looking like that? I have heard it argued frequently by alterationists that the back and to the left motion is an "artifact" of alteration, but I haven't seen a decent explain of how such an "artifact" could occur. 

I have looked into Horne and his revelations with Brugioni extensively. I was drawn to Brugioni's recollections because he was one of the top photoanalysts in the world. Horne et al. cite this frequently as evidence for the credibility of Brugioni's recollections about the content of the Zapruder film. I disagree. I tend to agree about Hawkeye works, the two separate briefing board events, and etc. I disagree about Brugioni's recollection about the white mist, that it lasted longer than one frame, and the content/imagery of the Zapruder film itself. I think it is perfectly valid to question Brugioni's recollection of a few frames of a film he wasn't asked about until about 40 years later. I put him in the same category as the rest of the people who have claimed to have seen the "original" Zapruder film. Most people would have a faulty memory of a few frames of film they saw one time 40 years ago. Making Brugioni's recollection some kind of proof of alteration is not credible.

Personally, I do tend to give some credence Brugioni's other recollections, but I think it is possible that they have an alternate explanation, namely that certain organizations like those who controlled Hawkeye works wanted information about Zapruder's film. It is perfectly reasonable, given what we know now about the CIA's (or elements thereof's) likely involvement with the assassination that someone "in the know" would want to have this info quickly, quietly, and covertly. 

So while the thrust of Roger's post I believe to be correct, namely that we should be looking for two head shots, I think that they most likely exist already somewhere in the extant Z-film, as it is not altered.

MM:  I think the point that Pat Speer frequently makes here still stands: the Zapruder film as it stands appears to show evidence of a conspiracy (even though, as I understand his theory on his website, Speer himself believes that all shots were from the rear. For what it is worth, since this thread is about the two head shots hypothesis, I think he makes the best and most coherent argument for it, in my highly non-expert opinion).

 

RO: If you think Pat believes all shots came from the back (I don't think that's correct but I'm not speaking for Pat) how can you then argue he makes the best and most coherent argument for 2 head shots.  Why would JFK's head go back and to the left after the last shot if all shots came from behind?

 

Yes the extant Zapruder still contains evidence of conspiracy because all of it could not be removed with the tools they had in '63.  Maybe even today. But if you believe there were two head shots, or at least a decent possibility of that, how can you believe the extant Zapruder's one frame flash (approximately 1/18 of a second) is an accurate depiction? 

 

MM;  The fact remains that the average schlub like myself who sees the Zapruder film and the back and to the left motion of Kennedy's head sees that and thinks "gee that looks like a shot from the front". Why then would conspirators who altered the film leave it looking like that?

 

RO:  Because JFK's body fell toward Jackie and she jumped on the trunk, etc.  They couldn't remove all of that.  Everyone saw that, for one thing.  The inability to completely alter the fact that at least one shot came from the front, and knowing that would torpedo their Oswald story, is a main reason Life (fronting for the CIA) went back to Zapruder on Sunday and gave him another $150 thousand for the rest of the rights to the film, including the right to (not) show it as a motion picture.  Then they buried the film for 12 years, while their Oswald story took hold. 

 

When the film was finally seen by much of the public on Geraldo in 1975, they gave the film and its rights back to Zapruder for $1. Does that explain Life's motive to you?

 

MM: I have heard it argued frequently by alterationists that the back and to the left motion is an "artifact" of alteration, but I haven't seen a decent explain of how such an "artifact" could occur. 

 

RO: Frequently?  I don't know who these "alterationists" are.  Cite?  You certainly won't hear that from me.  It's silly.

 

MM:   I have looked into Horne and his revelations with Brugioni extensively. I was drawn to Brugioni's recollections because he was one of the top photoanalysts in the world. Horne et al. cite this frequently as evidence for the credibility of Brugioni's recollections about the content of the Zapruder film. I disagree. I tend to agree about Hawkeye works, the two separate briefing board events, and etc. I disagree about Brugioni's recollection about the white mist, that it lasted longer than one frame, and the content/imagery of the Zapruder film itself. I think it is perfectly valid to question Brugioni's recollection of a few frames of a film he wasn't asked about until about 40 years later. I put him in the same category as the rest of the people who have claimed to have seen the "original" Zapruder film. Most people would have a faulty memory of a few frames of film they saw one time 40 years ago. Making Brugioni's recollection some kind of proof of alteration is not credible.

 

RO  If there were two head shots close together from opposite directions, the spray of debris would last longer than one frame, wouldn't it? If you claim (on what basis, you don't say) that the spray of tissue, blood and bone lasted only one frame, you are precluding a second head shot as the Thompson group and others have described.

 

MM:  Personally, I do tend to give some credence Brugioni's other recollections, but I think it is possible that they have an alternate explanation, namely that certain organizations like those who controlled Hawkeye works wanted information about Zapruder's film. It is perfectly reasonable, given what we know now about the CIA's (or elements thereof's) likely involvement with the assassination that someone "in the know" would want to have this info quickly, quietly, and covertly. 

 

RO:  That the CIA had Brugioni do the boards the next night to get clear information about the shots, and other things in the film, so the film could be altered is *the* explanation I offer, not some alternative!

 

MM:  So while the thrust of Roger's post I believe to be correct, namely that we should be looking for two head shots, I think that they most likely exist already somewhere in the extant Z-film, as it is not altered.

 

RO: Where does your conclusion that the film was not altered come from? It certainly was not explained in your post. 

 

I argue that starting with an understanding of the alterations in Zapruder is the best way to get to the truth of the two head shots and the murder itself.