the logic of Zapruder film alteration

[Chris Bristow]

14 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Uncovering the Probable Techniques Used to Alter the Zapruder Film in November 1963

Drawing inspiration from the groundbreaking research of esteemed Australian physicist John Costella, this video delves into a meticulous examination of the intricate processes possibly employed in the creation of the Zapruder film. By exploring the technological capabilities accessible to forgers during the pivotal year of 1963, we aim to provide a detailed and enlightening analysis of the potential methodologies utilized in crafting this historic piece of footage. Join us on a journey through history and technology as we uncover the secrets behind one of the most iconic films of our time.

 

I have been very interested in Dr Costella's observations of the Z film. I think the shifting Stemmons sign pole is still a valid mystery. There has never been a valid debunking of Dr Costella's Stemmons pole issue that I know of. It has stood the test of time, imo. 
 I think his observation about the lack of motion blur on the limo around frame 232 has merit too.
 There are a number of theories in the linked video that, imo, have not stood the test of time. 
 The couple seen around fr 232 are not facing the limo but that is, imo, normal. The Z film view is deceptive and makes it look like JFK has yet to pass by them. But an overhead view like the West map shows JFK had already passed them by fr 210. They would be looking at the back of his head by frame 223. They appear to be looking in the direction of LBJ in the Z film and some witnesses who specifically did not like JFK said they came to see their local politicians like Connally and LBJ. I don't think their direction of their gaze can be taken as evidence of alteration.
 I idea that the images of Moorman and Hill have Been enlarged does not seem to match the measurements. At least it does not work with the image size comparisons I have made. Without going into the weeds I would point out that the head sizes of JFK and Jackie are definitely larger than those of Hill and Mary Moorman. It seems to match the relative distances of the limo and the witnesses to Z. The location of the curb and elements like the peristyles also seem to be correct and show no sign of magnification which would change their exact positions in the film. 
  The 'legs together/legs apart guy' in frames 380/381 can be explained by the motion blur in frame 380 that makes it look like his legs are together when they are already apart. if you take the legs apart image in 381 and add the same motion blur found in fr 380 you can almost exactly reproduce the leg image in frame 380. Here is a link to a very short video that demonstrates this effect of motion blur.
https://youtu.be/HuPNRfENhnI
In the preceding frames he also appears to have his legs together. In those frames the blur increases with each frame as his legs are spreading apart more in each frame. The increased blur in conjunction with the legs opening up maintains the effect thru those frames . That explanation is somewhat subtle but I was able recreated that effect, although I lost that video comparison years ago.
  The lack of parallax of the lamppost and the background around frame 272 is very interesting. But now I think there is at least a possible explanation for that. In Willis 5 Zapruder is facing roughly east and by frame 315 the Moorman photo shows he has pivoted around by approx 70 degrees to face southwest. To do this he had to shift his weight to one foot in order to start his turn. If he started this turn by shifting his weight to the left foot in order to lift his right foot the camera would move left by a couple inches. So at that moment he would be panning the camera to the right his torso and the camera would be shifting left. That leftward shift of his weight and torso position cancel out any parallax that would happen as a result of panning to the right.
I have tested this by reproducing all the parameter including the amount he turned and the relative position and distance of the lamppost to Z and to the background. There are two variables in that test. Those are the point at which Z shifted his weight to start the turn and which leg he moved first. I tried to move in as natural an unbiased  manner as I could when reproducing Z's actions. What I found is the shift of weight to the left foot very neatly cancelled out the parallax of my lamppost and background. The background was maybe 25 ft further than the bushes in the Z film background. This is not an absolute proof of how the lack of parallax occurred in that Z film sequence, but it is certainly a plausible explanation of how it might have happened.
  The documentary also mentions the "odd blurred extension" on the lower left side of the post but I'm sure most everyone knows that is just the No Parking sign on the lamppost.
    Hargis' surge forward as the passengers lunge forward may very well be an artifact of alteration. The Nix film shows the limo slowing by about 3 mph and that is the speed at which Hargis closes in on the limo. Personally I can't see Hargis being caught off guard to such a degree that he did not compensate for the slight slowing of the limo.
   How someone could remove a limo stop or near stop is a big mystery. Simply removing frames or using a matte process are seriously problematic. But the account of the four bike cops saying it either completely stopped or almost completely stopped is an even bigger head scratcher. How could all four cops who were supposed to maintain their positions near the rear bumper through the entire parade, make such a gross error? How could they think it stopped when it is shown to only be slowing to 8mph? Even if the limo just slowed to 2 mph for 2 seconds before accelerating, it would change its position relative to the bike cops by about 40 feet. They would go from being at the rear bumper to being 20 feet out in front of the limo if they did not react to the slowing. How all four cops who are closely watching the changing speed of the limo throughout the parade could all make such a huge error in perception is hard to fathom.
 

[Roger Odisio]

7 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I have been very interested in Dr Costella's observations of the Z film. I think the shifting Stemmons sign pole is still a valid mystery. There has never been a valid debunking of Dr Costella's Stemmons pole issue that I know of. It has stood the test of time, imo. 
 I think his observation about the lack of motion blur on the limo around frame 232 has merit too.
 There are a number of theories in the linked video that, imo, have not stood the test of time. 
 The couple seen around fr 232 are not facing the limo but that is, imo, normal. The Z film view is deceptive and makes it look like JFK has yet to pass by them. But an overhead view like the West map shows JFK had already passed them by fr 210. They would be looking at the back of his head by frame 223. They appear to be looking in the direction of LBJ in the Z film and some witnesses who specifically did not like JFK said they came to see their local politicians like Connally and LBJ. I don't think their direction of their gaze can be taken as evidence of alteration.
 I idea that the images of Moorman and Hill have Been enlarged does not seem to match the measurements. At least it does not work with the image size comparisons I have made. Without going into the weeds I would point out that the head sizes of JFK and Jackie are definitely larger than those of Hill and Mary Moorman. It seems to match the relative distances of the limo and the witnesses to Z. The location of the curb and elements like the peristyles also seem to be correct and show no sign of magnification which would change their exact positions in the film. 
  The 'legs together/legs apart guy' in frames 380/381 can be explained by the motion blur in frame 380 that makes it look like his legs are together when they are already apart. if you take the legs apart image in 381 and add the same motion blur found in fr 380 you can almost exactly reproduce the leg image in frame 380. Here is a link to a very short video that demonstrates this effect of motion blur.
https://youtu.be/HuPNRfENhnI
In the preceding frames he also appears to have his legs together. In those frames the blur increases with each frame as his legs are spreading apart more in each frame. The increased blur in conjunction with the legs opening up maintains the effect thru those frames . That explanation is somewhat subtle but I was able recreated that effect, although I lost that video comparison years ago.
  The lack of parallax of the lamppost and the background around frame 272 is very interesting. But now I think there is at least a possible explanation for that. In Willis 5 Zapruder is facing roughly east and by frame 315 the Moorman photo shows he has pivoted around by approx 70 degrees to face southwest. To do this he had to shift his weight to one foot in order to start his turn. If he started this turn by shifting his weight to the left foot in order to lift his right foot the camera would move left by a couple inches. So at that moment he would be panning the camera to the right his torso and the camera would be shifting left. That leftward shift of his weight and torso position cancel out any parallax that would happen as a result of panning to the right.
I have tested this by reproducing all the parameter including the amount he turned and the relative position and distance of the lamppost to Z and to the background. There are two variables in that test. Those are the point at which Z shifted his weight to start the turn and which leg he moved first. I tried to move in as natural an unbiased  manner as I could when reproducing Z's actions. What I found is the shift of weight to the left foot very neatly cancelled out the parallax of my lamppost and background. The background was maybe 25 ft further than the bushes in the Z film background. This is not an absolute proof of how the lack of parallax occurred in that Z film sequence, but it is certainly a plausible explanation of how it might have happened.
  The documentary also mentions the "odd blurred extension" on the lower left side of the post but I'm sure most everyone knows that is just the No Parking sign on the lamppost.
    Hargis' surge forward as the passengers lunge forward may very well be an artifact of alteration. The Nix film shows the limo slowing by about 3 mph and that is the speed at which Hargis closes in on the limo. Personally I can't see Hargis being caught off guard to such a degree that he did not compensate for the slight slowing of the limo.
   How someone could remove a limo stop or near stop is a big mystery. Simply removing frames or using a matte process are seriously problematic. But the account of the four bike cops saying it either completely stopped or almost completely stopped is an even bigger head scratcher. How could all four cops who were supposed to maintain their positions near the rear bumper through the entire parade, make such a gross error? How could they think it stopped when it is shown to only be slowing to 8mph? Even if the limo just slowed to 2 mph for 2 seconds before accelerating, it would change its position relative to the bike cops by about 40 feet. They would go from being at the rear bumper to being 20 feet out in front of the limo if they did not react to the slowing. How all four cops who are closely watching the changing speed of the limo throughout the parade could all make such a huge error in perception is hard to fathom.
 

I want to go back over what happened to the Zapruder film the weekend of the murder in order to evaluate the likelihood, or even the plausibility, of Jeremy's claim that the film would not have been altered because destroying it was a better alternative.  Spoiler alert: we know the planners of the murder had at least two chances that weekend to destroy rather than alter or hide the film, and they rejected that option each time.

 

We shouldn't ignore the setting that weekend.  It was a time of national trauma and uncertainty. Topped off by the murder of Oswald on Sunday, who authorities were  already telling us was the lone assassin.  Back in Philadelphia Salandria was telling his brother in law that if Oswald was murdered it would mean we were watching a government coup.  

 

So what to do about the Zapruder film that the planners knew contradicted their Oswald story? It was already becoming well known. Zapruder had been on TV the day of the murder explaining what he had filmed.  He had watched the film several times to make sure it had captured the murder. Dan Rather, a local Dallas reporter at the time, got access and had described what he saw when he watched the film.

 

Saturday morning Zapruder organized a bid for media organizations that wanted the right to bring the film to the public.  A CBS rep was there but he could not get his people to bid beyond $10,000. Life mag blew them out of the water with a bid of $50,000, and that was just for the limited right to publish some stills from the film in their magazine.  Life also agreed to return the original to Zapruder after a several days in exchange for a copy Zapruder had kept.

 

For years the story had been told that Life then sent the film to its Chicago headquarters to begin work on it. That's not what happened.

 

Instead the film was sent to the NPIC lab used by the intelligence services, for the purpose of making sets of briefing boards that could clearly show the planners the extent to which the film contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with.

 

At that point, when the boards clearly showed the contradictions, the planners had to decide whether to try to eliminate or obscure the incriminating parts, or simply destroy the film.

 

They rejected destruction in favor of trying alteration, with the knowledge that if that failed they could still try to bury the film from public view as long as possible until things blew over.  Destroying the film would eliminate that option, and as we have seen hiding information is one thing the planners were are adept at.  Life was fronting for the planners; they knew Life would do what they wanted.

 

Instead of destroying it, the film was sent to the CIA's secret Hawkeye Works lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester, NY to try alterations.

 

It became apparent, probably rather quickly, that the alterations they could make were not sufficient to eliminate or obscure all of the incriminating evidence.

 

Note, however, that the alterations they ended up making meant that the original film was in fact destroyed. Just not in the sense Jeremy means.  The original no longer existed; it was replaced by the altered film.  A second set of briefing boards was made starting that weekend from the film returned from HW, and Bruginoi's boards, made from the original film, the last vestiges of the original, were later destroyed.

 

Here was a second decision point for the planners, who were no doubt kept abreast of what was happening at HW. They could scrap the alteration idea as a failure and simply destroy the film. When that became public knowledge as it surely would have because the public was curious about the film, which Life's publication a few days later would surely stoke, they could blame the "accident" on another patsy, as Jeremy suggests. That would make two convenient patsies introduced in the first few days after the murder, one of which they had just murdered so he couldn't contradict their story.

 

Once again they rejected the idea to destroy the film altogether.

 

Life went back to Zapruder Sunday afternoon and cancelled the original deal. They gave Zapruder another $100,000 for the full rights to the film, including the right to show it in its entirety. They then buried it from public view, rejecting all requests to show it, for what turned out to be almost 12 years. 

 

When a bootleg copy of the film was shown on TV in 1975, Life's job of hiding it was finished.  They sold the altered film back to Zapruder for $1. That establishes what Life's role was in the whole process.

    

What does all of this mean? Reason, together with the actions taken that weekend by the planners, establish the logical basis for the claim that the Zapruder film was altered. It prevents gatekeepers from arguing the film was not, or could not, have been altered.  It provides a basis to examine all of the specific alterations that have been alleged.

[Keven Hofeling]

Case Not Closed: The Zapruder Film - Alex Cox on the JFK Assassination

Let's take a look at the Zapruder film. Is it real, or is it something else?

 

President John F. Kennedy was said to have been murdered by a lone crazed gunman in a Dallas motorcade a half-century ago. The accused killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, was also murdered under mysterious circumstances just a couple days later.

 

Alex Cox, like most of the American and British public, does not buy into the moth-eaten establishment tale about the regicide. The President and the Provocateur is not the usual conspiracy volume, and is structured almost like the film Rashomon, including varying views of the story with different fonts and sizes.

 

The Kennedy assassination saga has obsessed filmmaker Alex Cox (Repo Man, Sid & Nancy) for most of his life. The President and The Provocateur is Cox's informed meditation on the conspiratorial tale, and as such is an imaginative rendering of the parallel structures of the lives of John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

From Alex: "I've posted another Case Not Closed short -- this one about the Zapruder film. There's a fair bit of information about the mysterious adventures of Mr. Zapruder's home movie: two 8mm films on one 16mm roll, supposedly split and copied onto standard 8mm at the Jamieson Film Lab in Dallas. When I wrote THE PRESIDENT AND THE PROVOCATEUR the history of the film was twisted enough: How many copies were made? Why was there a gap in the numerical sequence? Was it true that the right wing oiligarch H.L. Hunt had his own personal copy on the evening of the assassination?

 

Since then the chain of possession has become still murkier. Not one but two CIA photographic experts have come forward, to reveal that the Zapruder film was screened at CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington DC the weekend after the assassination. Incredibly, the two men -- Homer McMahon (then Head of the NPIC Color Lab) and Dino Brugioni (Chief Information Officer at NPIC) saw different films. One film was on an 8mm reel. The other was on an un-split 16mm reel. According to McMahon and Brugioni, the content of the films was different. Each man, unaware at the time of the other's work, prepared briefing boards for CIA and Secret Service study.

 

This strange tale -- which indicates multiple "Zapruder" films and multiple 16mm reels very early on -- is told by Douglas P. Horne, Senior Analyst on the ARRB's Military Records Team, here:  https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

 

Horne's story is the tip of the iceberg. The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, edited by Jim Fetzer, goes into much detail, pointing out anomalies in the existing version of the film. John Costella discusses possible alterations and special visual effects -- in particular, the possible insertion of a fake Stemmons Freeway sign, here:  https://books.google.com/books?id=1BONAgAAQBAJ&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq="Great+Zapruder+Film+Hoax"&source=bl&ots=21LozuHUZX&sig=ACfU3U2YgEo_mkvjrMybh39qZId2VMY6kw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ0aCMwrOEAxUDIUQIHfnTDYI4HhDoAXoECAIQAw

 

Monte Evans' long piece about Dan Rather, who was given exclusive access to the Zapruder film and misrepresented it (at least based on the film we've seen) was published in Issue 6, Vol 6, of The Third Decade (Nov 1990) -- available at the Mary Ferrell site:  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48756#relPageId=3

 

And this is about the Zapruder film. So let's end with a little meditation on how and why, when we the taxpayers purchased the "original" film from the Zapruder estate as a national archival treasure, the copyright passed not to us ninety-nine percenters, but to a private corporation, based in the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. How much did we spend to acquire this asset, for a private company? A cool sixteen million dollars."

Edited February 17 by Keven Hofeling

[David Josephs]

The film in the archives is in 7 pieces from 6 splices.
The film in the archives does NOT have 0183 stamped on any part of it.
The film in the archives adds up to more than 45 feet of film from a Side B with 30 feet of actual film
The film discussed in the WCR was 33 seconds long.

Where is the rest of the "unaltered original" after being spliced and reattached 6 times
if this is the in-camera original?

Why does Max Philipps refer to "4" total copies in his letter to Rowley, below?

 

Yet Zapruder was in possession of the "original" and "the BEST copy". 2 films
Sorrels was given 2 copies... (1 goes to FBI) that's now 4 total films.

"The third print is forwarded".    5 total films...  and I believe explains the missing 0184 seen by Dino, from which the real boards were made and lost to history.

Can any member here can tell us where the film which arrived on Rowley's desk in the hours after midnight, went?

We all know it was in DC and seen that night... but then as I see it, that's the end of that film's trail.

Wasn't it SS agents who brought the "films" to NPIC that weekend?  Bill Smith?

[Keven Hofeling]

This PDF file (the link to which is below) contains the internal correspondence concerning the ARRB's investigation of the Zapruder film events at the NPIC on the weekend of the assassination, about contacting and interviewing Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, and includes copies of CIA documents about same provided to the Rockefeller Commission in 1975, and copies of the working notes from the second NPIC session itself: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10336-10024.pdf

 

https://jfk.deeppoliticsforum.com/melanson.html

HIDDEN EXPOSURE Cover-Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder film by Philip H. Melanson

It has been called the film of the century. It is surely America's most historically important twenty-two seconds of film: the Zapruder film (the Z-film, as researchers call it). On November 22, 1963 Dallas dress manufacturer Abraham Zapruder had come to see President Kennedy pass through Dealey Plaza. Zapruder had forgotten his camera; he rushed home to get it and returned just in time to view the motorcade. Standing on a low concrete wall to the right front of the approaching Presidential limousine. Zapruder peered through his 8-millimeter, zoom lens, Bell & Howell movie camera. The camera was fully wound and set manually on maximum zoom.

The shocking tragedy captured in color by the Z film is all too familiar to many Americans: the death of John F. Kennedy. As the film begins, the motorcade turns and comes toward the camera. President and Mrs, Kennedy smile and wave from inside the open limousine. For several seconds, the President is blocked from Zapruder's view as the limousine passes behind a street sign. When the limousine emerges from behind the sign, Kennedy is clearly reacting to a wound: his hands move up to clutch his throat. He totters to his left; Jacqueline Kennedy looks toward him anxiously. Then the fatal head shot impacts; the President's head explodes in a ghastly corona of blood and brains. His body is thrust violently backward against the seat then bounces forward. Kennedy's exposed skull gleams in the bright Texas sunshine. He falls sideways into his wife's arms. Mrs. Kennedy climbs onto the trunk of the limousine to recover a fragment of her husband's skull. A Secret Service agent jumps aboard and pushes her into her seat as the limousine speeds away.

The Z film is more than gruesome history; it is also the best evidence of the assassination, the baseline of time and motion. By analyzing blowups and calculating elapsed time according to the running speed of Zapruder's camera, investigative bodies from the Warren Commission to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (in 1978) have drawn their conclusions about the timing, number, and direction of the shots, as have scores of private researchers. It is the timing between shots that provides crucial data for the key question: was it a conspiracy? If the elapsed time between bullets hitting the President is too short for a lone assassin to have aimed and fired, then there is proof of conspiracy.

Over the years there have been allegations that elements of the American intelligence community, especially the CIA, were involved in covering up a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, or were active participants in a conspiracy. Some assassination researchers have also suggested that the Zapruder film may have been subjected to sophisticated altering designed to hide a conspiracy. They point to apparent anomalies in the motion of the President's body and to an apparent shadow appearing toward the front of Kennedy's head.1 The speculation is that the original film may have shown that Kennedy was shot from the front, from the grassy knoll, rather than from the rear (from the Book Depository from which Oswald was supposed to have fired); but that the film was altered before it reached the hands of official investigators.

In any criminal case, the integrity of evidence depends upon its chain of possession: who had it when, how and for what purposes before it came into the possession of official investigators to be analyzed by them. In the JFK case the Warren Commission was the official investigating body and the FBI its official investigative arm which conducted tests and analyses of the evidence, including the Z film.

Documents obtained from the FBI, CIA and Secret Service through the Freedom of Information Act contain startling revelations about the Z film's chain of possession. The first documents surfaced in 1976; others in 1981. They provide considerable support for allegations of a CIA cover-up and for allegations regarding possible CIA manipulation of evidence. There is now good reason to question the evidentiary integrity of the Z film. Moreover, it is clear that before the FBI had obtained the film, CIA experts had already analyzed it and had found data which strongly suggested a conspiracy.

The official version of who had the film and camera when and how is as follows.2 The afternoon of the assassination Zapruder took his film to a commercial photo studio in Dallas for rush developing. Word of the film's existence soon leaked out and, within hours, several news and publishing organizations contacted Zapruder with offers to buy it. Zapruder had three copies made. He immediately gave two copies to the United States Secret Service. The Service kept one copy for itself and gave one to the FBI the day after the assassination. Zapruder sold the original and one copy to LIFE magazine on November 23, reportedly for $25,000. LIFE published pictures from the film in its November 29th issue and locked the original film in a New York vault. Zapruder's camera was given to the FBI by Zapruder so that the Bureau could determine the running speed (the number of frames per second at which the film moved through the camera). This figure would then be used to clock the precise time between shots. The FBI later returned the camera to Zapruder, who gave it to the Bell & Howell Company for its archives.

I had long suspected that the official version was incomplete. Several Warren Commission witnesses had mentioned that a copy of the film had gone to Washington, but their references to such an event were vague and conflicting. According to FBI documents, the Bureau did not obtain a copy of the film until the day after the assassination when it borrowed one of the Secret Service's copies. The FBI had the technical expertise for analyzing the film but did not have the film for twenty-four hours; the Secret Service got two copies right away but, by all indications, lacked the technical capacity for a sophisticated in-house analysis. It was clear from CIA documents declassified in the 1970s -- documents unrelated to the assassination -- that the Secret Service of the 1960s and early 1970s had some sort of technical dependence upon the CIA. The CIA had provided technical assistance, equipment and briefings to the Secret Service, even to the point of manufacturing the color-coded lapel pins worn by Secret Service agents.3 It made sense that Secret Service, lacking its own high-powered photographic expertise, might turn to the CIA for help in analyzing the Zapruder film; but there was nothing to substantiate this hypothesis.

Then, in 1976, assassination researcher Paul Hoch discovered CIA #450 among a batch of documents released by CIA because of a Freedom of Information Act request. Item 450 consists of nine pages of documents relating to an analysis of the Z film conducted for the Secret Service by the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, one of the world's most technically sophisticated photo-analysis laboratories. For the first time, there was evidence that CIA had possessed and analyzed the film. Apparently CIA had gotten the film from the Secret Service. There is nothing in Item 450, however, that states when the NPIC analysis was done -- hours after the assassination? weeks? months? Nor is it clear whether NPIC analyzed a copy of the film or an original.

Among the nine pages in Item 450 are four pages of handwritten notes and calculations. One notation describes photographic work done by NPIC:

-- Proc, dry 2 hr. -- Print test 3 hr. -- Make 3 prints 1 hr. -- Proc. and dry prints 1 1/2 hr.

In Dallas, Zapruder was supposed to have had an original and three copies. No other copies were known to exist. Now we find that the CIA laboratory in Washington made three prints -- the same number as were supposed to have been made in Dallas. Did NPIC make more, unaccounted for copies; or did the NPIC-produced copies somehow end up as the Dallas copies? Was NPIC producing third-generation prints; or had it somehow obtained the original?

It was researcher David Lifton who, through our discussions and exchanges of date, first suggested that the previously described notation ("proc. dry" etc) referred to work being done with the original film, not a copy. My discussions with a half dozen photographic experts from both academic and commercial photo laboratories, confirm this point.4 "Processing" refers to developing an original. If NPIC had been working with a copy, the first step would have been to print, then process. The NPIC notation "print test" refers to a short piece of film printed from the original and used to check the exposure -- to see if the negative is too light or too dark -- before printing copies from the original. Thus there is strong indications that NPIC had the original.

The original is assumed to have remained in Dallas in Zapruder's possession until he sold it to LIFE on November 23, the day after the assassination. This allowed time enough for the original to have been flown from Dallas to D.C., analyzed, and returned to Dallas before LIFE got it. Yet, according to Zapruder and the Secret Service, the original never left Dallas until LIFE purchased it. Perhaps the original made a secret trip to Washington.

Zapruder had already kept one secret about the film from the Warren Commission. In his testimony to the Commission, Zapruder stated that LIFE had paid him $25,000 for the film, all of which he donated to charity. What he did not reveal, even under questioning, was that the deal actually called for $125,000 more to be paid in five yearly installments.5 Zapruder also told the Warren Commission that immediately after the assassination, he went to his office and told his secretary to call the police or Secret Service because "I knew I had something, I figured it might be of some help."6 But according to Dallas Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels, he was alerted to the film by a reporter from the Dallas Morning News who contacted him and informed him that a man had made some movies that the Secret Service might be interested in.7 The reporter took Sorrels to Zapruder's office. As Sorrels described it, "Mr. 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 and that it would not be shown or given to any newspapers or magazines as he expected to sell the film for as high a price as he could get for it."

Whether Sorrels was summoned by Zapruder or got word of the film by some other means and surprised Zapruder by showing up at his office, the question still remains whether the Secret Service would be willing to accept only a copy of the film instead of the original. In 1973, LIFE's Richard B. Stolly, who negotiated the purchase of the film from Zapruder, opined that "If the federal government had not been in such disarray at that moment (immediately after the assassination) somebody with authority and a sense of history would probably have asked Zapruder for the original film and he probably would have relinquished it."8 Whether someone in authority asked or told Zapruder, indications are that he did indeed relinquish it.

Was Zapruder really in a position to get the Secret Service to accept his conditions concerning the use of the film? Presumably, the original could have been subpoenaed as evidence, thereby delaying -- perhaps even ruining -- Zapruder's chance to make a lucrative deal. The Secret Service, having just lost a President, may not have been inclined to accept a copy of the film instead of the original or to adhere to conditions set by Zapruder. Out at Parkland hospital, Dallas County Medical Examiner Earl Rose, accompanied by a Justice of the Peace, informed Secret Service agents that they could not remove the President's body and take it to Washington, a position fully consistent with Texas law. The agents drew their guns, pushed the medical examiner and the justice against the wall and took the body. If Secret Service agents were such lions in dealing with Earl Rose, why their lamb-like behavior with Abrahan Zapruder?

If Zapruder did manage to strike a bargain with the Secret Service, the terms may well have been that the Service took the original for a brief time (perhaps only eighteen hours) but promised to keep the loan secret so as not to jeopardize Zapruder's chances for a deal. If potential buyers knew that the original had been out of Zapruder's hands, they might have perceived it as second-hand merchandise; if they knew the government was printing extra copies, the exclusivity of the purchase rights might be in doubt.

Exclusivity was very important to the deal, and Zapruder knew it. LIFE's Richard B. Stolly recalled that through all the chaos, Zapruder kept his "business sense."9 Stolly says that Zapruder claimed to have obtained sworn statements from the employees at the film lab in Dallas where the film was first developed, stating that no extra copies of the film had been "bootlegged"; thus "whoever bought the film would have it exclusively."

Even if NPIC was not analyzing the original film but only a copy, documents in CIA Item #450 reveal that the analysis produced some striking data which logically supported a conclusion of conspiracy. he main thrust of NPIC's analysis was to construct various three-shot scenarios. The film was studied and the elapsed time between the frames on which the shots occurred was estimated. Nine different three-shot scenarios were produced, by varying the points (frames) at which the President appeared to have been shot by varying the estimated running speed of the camera.

Whether NPIC knew it or not, the majority of their scenarios precluded a lone assassin. In 1964 the FBI tested the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository. The Bureau discovered that marksmen could not re-aim and re-fire the weapon any faster than 2.25 - 2.30 seconds.10 Thus any interval between shots which is shorter than that would constitute persuasive evidence that there were two gunmen. Five of NPIC's scenarios had intervals that were too short -- 2.1 seconds, 2.0, even 1.0. There is no indication in the released documents that NPIC thought that the five two-gunmen scenarios were any less valid than the four scenarios which allowed sufficient time for a lone assassin.

One of the scenarios which does allow enough time between shots for a lone assassin is labeled "LIFE Magazine." The calculations in this scenario are identical with those appearing in LIFE's December 6, 1963 article "End to Nagging Rumors: Six Critical Seconds." The article used an analysis of the Z film to attempt to prove that Oswald acted alone. The question arises: was NPIC generating data for LIFE magazine or was the country's most sophisticated photo-analysis laboratory reading LIFE for analytic clues? So far as we know, LIFE conducted its own analysis for its own auricle, and there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary. But one handwritten note scrawled near the LIFE magazine scenario reads: "They know the exact time of the 1st and 2nd shot?" It is a strange question if "they" is LIFE and if their article is already finished or on the stands. Presumably, LIFE should already know whatever their article states that they know, and the article boasts that LIFE has reconstructed the "precise timing" of the shots.

In 1982 Bernard Fensterwald Jr., a Washington attorney and assassination researcher, filed suit in federal court against the CIA and forced the release of six hundred pages of previously classified documents relating to the assassination. Among them were additional documents concerning NPIC and the Z film. The documents dated back to the mid 1970s when assassination researcher Paul Hoch asked the Rockefeller Commission, which was investigating possible CIA involvement in the JFK assassination, to check into the NPIC analysis of the Z film. The document, which were withheld by the CIA until Fensterwald's suit in 1982, concern CIA's response to a Rockefeller Commission query about the NPIC analysis.

By itself, and it believed, the 1982 release seemed to minimize CIA's involvement with the Z film. CIA documents claimed that the Agency never possessed its own copy of the film until February 1965, when Time Inc. (TIME-LIFE) provided a copy to the CIA's Office of Training.11 According to an agreement between TIME and the CIA, the film was not to be duplicated, exhibited or published but only used for CIA "training" -- whatever that meant.12 There was no mention of the three copies mysteriously printed by NPIC.

As for the NPIC analysis of the film, the CIA told the Rockefeller Commission that the Secret Service did bring a copy of the film to CIA Director John McCone "late in 1963." NPIC conducted an analysis "late that same night." But "it was not possible to determine the precise time between shots without access to the camera to time the rate of spring rundown." Furthermore, said CIA, Secret Service agents were present during the analysis and "took the film away with them that night."13

All of this certainly refers to the same NPIC analysis described in CIA Item #450. The "rate of spring rundown" (running speed of the camera) was not known and had to be estimated by NPIC. Again, if the Secret Service took one "copy" away with them, what happened to the other NPIC copies? Did the Secret Service know about them? And what about the substantive data produced by the NPIC analysis (the nine scenarios, five of which precluded a lone assassin?) There are indications that the Secret Service never got that data, even though it was precisely the kind of information that they hoped to get from the CIA experts at NPIC.

In responding in 1976 to the Rockefeller Commission's query about the NPIC analysis, the CIA stated: "We assume that Secret Service informed the Warren Commission about anything of value resulting from our technical analysis of the film, but we have no direct knowledge that they did so."14 There is no evidence that the Secret Service ever told the Warren Commission about the existence of the NPIC analysis much less about the results. One possible explanation for this is that the Secret Service withheld the data so that the Warren Commission wouldn't see the five conspiracy scenarios. Another possibility is that the CIA withheld the data from the Secret Service so that the Service wouldn't see them.

One CIA memo contained in Item #450 states "We do not know whether the Secret Service took copies of these notes (on the three-shot scenarios) at the time of the analysis."15 It would seem odd for the Secret Service to go to the trouble to seek out an expert analysis and then not take away any of the data. Yet, no trace of the NPIC analysis has ever appeared in declassified Secret Service files or Warren Commission documents, only NPIC-CIA files. Perhaps the Secret Service never knew that the data existed; perhaps Service agents were only "present" for part of the analysis.

The most intriguing reference in the 1982 release is the CIA's description of when NPIC performed its analysis for the Secret Service: "late in 1963." This could mean November 22 or December 31. Didn't CIA know the date when the analysis took place; or was it using the euphemism "late in 1963" because it was unwilling to admit that it had the film within forty-eight hours of the assassination? CIA stated that NPIC's analysis was done "late that same night" that the Secret Service brought the film to CIA. Why rush or work overtime, unless "late in 1963"16 really meant November 22nd or 23rd?

I decided to pursue another avenue. Several months after the 1982 CIA release, I initiated a Freedom of Information request to the Secret Service and asked for "any and all documents relating to Secret Service possession or analysis of the Zapruder film of the John F. Kennedy assassination, or of Mr. Zapruder's camera, inclusive of any and all documents relating to possession of the film and/or camera by the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) or the Central Intelligence Agency."

The Secret Service response came as a surprise. They claimed that in 1979 they had turned over to the National Archives in Washington all documents relating to the Kennedy assassination. I had previously researched all of the Warren Commission records in the National Archives pertaining to the CIA and the Secret Service but had found nothing relevant to NPIC's analysis. I called Mr. Marion Johnson, the archivist in charge of the Warren Commission records, to inquire whether the 1979 material passed on by the Secret Service had been in the files I had already examined. It had not. Due to a shortage of staff, the Archives had not yet security-cleared and processed the six boxes of "new" material. Johnson and his staff processed the boxes within two weeks.

After five hours of wading through the hodgepodge of newly processed documents -- which included everything from carbon copies of previously released documents, to copies of the contents of Lee Harvey Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest, to 5x8 close-ups of the blood stains and brain matter on the seat of the limousine -- I came across the only documents related to the Z film. They reveal that, in 1964, Henry Suydam, LIFE's Bureau Chief wrote to Secret Service Director James Rowley to say that LIFE believed that the Secret Service had two copies of the Zapruder film.17 Suydam stressed that the copies were the property of TIME, Inc. and that they should not be shown to anyone outside the government. He further stipulated that the Service could keep them as long as it needed them but must return them to TIME, Inc when it was finished.

Secret Service Director Rowley wrote to Forrest Sorrels, the agent in charge of the Service's Dallas office, and asked for a detailed account of how the Zapruder film came into Secret Service possession.18 Agent Sorrels' response provides a strong indication that "late in 1963," as the CIA vaguely described it, was, in fact, the night of the assassination. Sorrels states that after the film was developed, he obtained "two copies" from Zapruder (the standard explanation), "one copy of which was immediately airmailed to chief (Director of the Secret Service in Washington)."19

"Immediately" would be sometime late in the afternoon following the 12:30 P.M. assassination, after Sorrels had caught up with Zapruder. After a three hour flight from Dallas to Washington, the film would arrive at Secret Service headquarters, be taken to CIA headquarters, then to NPIC -- probably not before early- to mid-evening. So NPIC would be working late into the night on its rush analysis of this most important piece of evidence. It now seems clear that "late that same night," as CIA described it, was actually the very night of the assassination. Why after all -- after rushing the film to Washington by plane -- would the Secret Service delay an expert analysis of a film which could conceivably reveal the President's assassin(s)?

And why would the Secret Service be satisfied with a copy which was less clear than the original? Since it seems certain that NPIC conducted its analysis on the night of the assassination, this greatly increases the likelihood that NPIC had the original (as is indicated by the notations on the CIA Item #450 which described the photographic work). LIFE took possession of the original on November 23; but, before then, Zapruder could have secretly loaned the original to the Secret Service.

In addition to the chain of possession of the film, there is also the matter of Zapruder's camera. The Z film's evidentiary potential is, to an important degree, dependent upon calculating the average running speed of the camera. The reader will recall that at the time of its analysis, NPIC did not know the exact speed of Zapruder's camera. Without this data, absolute and precise determination of the elapsed time between shots are not possible. An interval of forty-two frames between shots with an estimated camera speed of eighteen frames per second would produce an elapsed time of 2.33 seconds. This would allow enough time for a lone gunman to have done the shooting, according to the FBI's calculation of 2.25 to 2.30 as the minimum time needed to aim and fire. But if Zapruder's camera ran at 18.8 frames per second instead of 18.0, this same 42-frame interval would be only 2.23 seconds and would fall just below the lone-assassin minimum.

The FBI, having official investigative responsibility, obtained the camera from Zapruder, tested it, and found the average running speed to be 18.3 frames per second.20 This took place nearly two weeks after the assassination.21 But what of NPIC's very-rushed, very sophisticated analysis conducted the night of the assassination? It makes no sense that after calculating the time between shots in terms of tenths of seconds, NPIC and the CIA would sit back and wait for a couple of weeks until the FBI provided this key piece of data -- the camera speed.

In October 1982, while searching through the FBI's voluminous, poorly organized assassination files, I came across a memo which strongly supported the notion the NPIC had not waited for the FBI. The December 4, 1963 memo written by FBI agent Robert Barrett, reports that on the date Zapruder handed his camera over to the FBI. Barrett goes on to say that, "He (Zapruder) advised this camera had been in the hands of the United States Secret Service agents on Dec. 3, 1963, as they claimed they wanted to do some checking of it."22

We do not know how long the Secret Service had the camera or when they got it from Zapruder. Zapruder told the FBI that the Secret Service had the camera on December 3, when they returned it to him; the Service could have borrowed it from him days before that. Thus we have an important break in the known chain of possession of the camera. It went not from Zapruder to the FBI but from Zapruder to the Secret Service then back to Zapruder and then to the FBI. It was then that the FBI made the crucial calculation of 18.3 frames per second, which everyone henceforth would use as the time frame for analyzing the Z film. It is surely possible, even reasonable, that the Secret Service might have done with the camera what it did with the film -- secretly rush it to NPIC where it could be analyzed, but where it also could have been tampered with.

The search for additional documents continues. Someday, we may know the real chain of possession of the film and camera. For now, this much is clear. The official, historically accepted chain of possession is wrong. The film's secret journey to a CIA laboratory in Washington on the night of the assassination raises serious doubts about the film's integrity as evidence. It also raises questions about who in the intelligence community knew what, when and how concerning John Kennedy's assassination.

If, as appears to be the case, it was the original of the Z film that was secretly diverted to the CIA laboratory on November 22, 1963, then the means and opportunity for sophisticated alteration did, in fact, exist -- alteration that even the most expert analysis would have difficulty in detecting. By the 1960s cinematography labs had the technical capacity to insert or delete individual frames of a film,to resize images, to create special effects. But it would take an extraordinary sophistication to do so in a manner that would defy detection -- the kind of sophistication that one would expect of CIA photo experts.

Between Zapruder and the Secret Service, they had possession of all three of the Dallas-made copies for nearly twenty-four hours. With the original at NPIC and with three copies made there, it is possible that if the film was doctored, the three NPIC copies of the doctored film were substituted for the three Dallas-made copies. It is even possible that all of the Dallas-made copies went to NPIC along with the original and that the switch was made there. We have only Zapruder and the Secret Service's assertions as to where the copies were for twenty-four hours.

Setting aside the worst-case scenario (so alteration of the original film in order to hide a conspiracy), there is still the fact that NPIC generated data which would logically support a conspiracy theory, and that this data never reached the Warren Commission and appears to have been withheld from the Secret Service as well.

It is possible that the film of the century is more intricately related to the crime of the century than we ever knew -- not because it recorded the crime of the century, as we have assumed, but because it was itself an instrument of conspiracy.

Footnotes: 1. See David S. Lifton, Best Evidence (New York: Macmillan, 1980), p. 355n, 557n. 2. Zapruder testimony in Warren Commission Hearings, vol7, pp. 569-76; Lifton, loc. cit; FBI report of agent Robert M. Barrett, Dec. 4, 1963; statement of George Hunt, Managing Editor, LIFE (cited in Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds In Dallas, Berkeley Ca (Berkeley Publ. Co., 1976, pp. 217-18); Richard B. Stolley, "What Happened Next?" Esquire Nov. 1973, pp. 134-5; 262-3. 3. CIA memo of June 5, 1973 "Secret Service Request," (for technical equipment). This document was part of the CIA's "Domestic Police Training File" (362 pages) obtained by the author through a 1982 Freedom of Information Act request, 1976 hearings of the House Intelligence Committee. 4. I am indebted to Elaine Fisher, Professor of Visual Design at Southeastern Massachusetts University, for providing expertise and suggesting other resource persons. 5. New York Times, May 13, 1965. 6. Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 7, pp. 569-71. 7. Sorrels testimony: Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 5, p.352. 8. Stolly, "What Happened Next." 9. Stolly, "What Happened Next." 10. Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 3, p. 407 (Frazer); vol. 3, p. 153. 11. CIA memo of Oct. 23, 1975 for Deputy Director, "The 'Zapruder Film' of President John F. Kennedy's Assassination" Doc. 1472-492-BT 12. CIA memo of Apr. 23, 1975 for Office of the Inspector General, subject: "The 'Zapruder Film' of President John F. Kennedy's Assassination" (Doc. 1627-1085) 13. CIA "Addendum to Comment on the Zapruder Film," p. 16, 1982; CIA release to Fensterwald. 14. Ibid 15. CIA Item #450, "NPIC Analysis of Zapruder Filming of John F. Kennedy Assassination" 16. CIA "Addendum to Comment . . " (see citation 13 above) 17. Suydam letter to Rowley, Jan. 7, 1964 18. Rowley memo to Sorrels, Jan. 14, 1964 (Secret Service 00-2-34-000) 19. Sorrels to Inspector Kelly, "Zapruder Film of the Assassination of President Kennedy," Jan. 21, 1964. 20. Warren Report 21. Report of FBI Agent Robert M. Barrett (see citation 2), Barrett reports that he received the camera from Zapruder on Dec. 4. 22. Barrett report.

 

Edited February 18 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

Jim Feliciano wrote:

Adding fuel into the fire, read: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/4728545/the-great-zapruder-film-hoax-assassination-research 

 

The pre-eminent authority on the Z-film is John Costella, a PhD physicist with special expertise in the properties of light. He is also highly skilled at detecting optical distortions produced via imaging transformations, a skill that is directly pertinent to the Zapruder film. As a simple demonstration (Figure 12), Costella notes the impossible features of Z-232 (i.e., frame 232 of the Zapruder film), which was originally published in LIFE’s 1963 Memorial Edition, Costella explains that stationary objects should be blurred by the same amount (as one another), while uniformly moving objects should be consistently blurred by a different (but self-consistent) amount. In Z-232, however, this blurring is grossly inconsistent, which could only occur if this frame had been altered.

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

I remember Doug Horne saying that there was a Hollywood company that ad looked at the film and determined alteration to have been "an overnight job." Did this company ever come forward publicly? If so, can anyone provide a link to their findings?

[Keven Hofeling]

On 2/17/2024 at 6:51 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:

I remember Doug Horne saying that there was a Hollywood company that ad looked at the film and determined alteration to have been "an overnight job." Did this company ever come forward publicly? If so, can anyone provide a link to their findings?

The reason that we know the alterations were all completed the weekend of the assassination is that they are all present in the photographs of the Zapruder film published in the 11/29/1963 edition of LIFE. The other take away from that 11/29/1963 edition of LIFE is that the photographs were all grainy black and white stills (rather than the crisp color stills that would appear in all subsequent editions of LIFE) because NPIC and Hawkeyeworks had the original altered film that weekend (officially, the original extant Zapruder film was supposed to be in the possession of LIFE magazine that weekend).

 

And as for the Hollywood professionals you have in mind, you are thinking of the Hollywood Seven, who have performed content analysis on the Zapruder film (something that former Kodak chemist Rollie Zavada was not qualified to do). The findings of these Hollywood professionals are going to become available to us with the release of a documentary entitled "Alteration," made by Thom Whitehead, a Hollywood television and feature-film mastering editor specializing in motion pictures, and Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood—specifically, in the marketing of post production services within the motion picture film industry. As the result of Wilkinson and Whitehead's efforts, these Hollywood professionals have performed content analysis on the Zapruder film, and I have just recently come across the testimony of some of those experts in an article by Jacob Hornberger that was published on August 16, 2023, which in relevant part provides as follows: 

https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/

"...I’m going to present one last piece of evidence to complete my case. That evidence consists of expert testimony from three witnesses — Paul Rutan, Jr., Garrett Smith, and Dr. Roderick Ryan.

In my book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, I include a partial transcript of an interview of Rutan and Smith, both of whom closely examined a high-quality copy of the extant Zapruder film — that is, the film that is in the National Archives that is purported to be the original film but that is actually the altered, fraudulent copy of the film that the CIA secretly produced at its top-secret Hawkeyeworks facility in Rochester, New York. 

I was fortunate to be able to include a portion of that interview in my book. The interview was conducted by Thom Whitehead, a Hollywood television and feature-film mastering editor specializing in motion pictures. The interview was conducted as part of a documentary on the Zapruder film that is being produced by Whitehead and his colleague Sydney Wilkinson. 

Douglas Horne, the author of the watershed book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board and who served on the staff of the ARRB, requested permission from Whitehead and Wilkinson to include a portion of the interview in my book, and they graciously agreed. As far as I know, my book is the first and only place where that portion of the interview has been published. 

Rutan and Smith

The following are excerpts from the partial transcript of that interview that I included in my book:

Smith:  .…Now, as to my credibility, thirty-seven years in the movie business, I’m not sure how much lower you can go than that; and [I] just got done with nearly twenty-five years at Paramount, where I basically ran their mastering for most of those years and spent the last few years investigating new digital production technology. 

Rutan:  [I’ve] been doing this since 1968, I was delivering film in New York City; and then full time from ’74 I got hired to work for my Dad, and I worked for him for 12 years — started out as janitor, and then shipping, and then film cleaning, and then film repair, and then optical lineup, and then optical printing. So, ever since then I’ve worked for a couple of companies, set up a department at COMPAC video, and I had my own company for 14 years doing restoration.

Whitehead:  Do you see any signs of alteration? 

Rutan:  Yes.

Whitehead:  Where do you see them?

Rutan:  Well [speaking while pointing at frame 313 on a large HD monitor], in the — this explosion right here doesn’t look, it’s, see [pointing] — it’s got defects on it — but it just doesn’t look real, it doesn’t look like blood, it just doesn’t look real….

Rutan:  I think you’re looking at a patch, at a photographic patch that they put on the back of his [JFK’s] head. It’s crude, but if you run the film you’ll see that it moves — differently than his head does, as well. So, it’s an optical, some sort of an optical [effect] that they put on there, to not show the back of his head.

Whitehead:  In your opinion, what do you think would have been the most likely way this would have been accomplished? 

Rutan:  With an optical printer, with an aerial optical printer….

Rutan:  Well, the only thing I can see really is how predominant the black patch is in this particular frame [pointing]. I mean, it’s clear to me that that is not the back of his head, that that is some kind of a [sic] optical effect, that has been laid on the back of his head by an optical house. And this [pointing at the large pink “blob” on the right side of JFK’s head] is also an optical effect. But the back of his head is what always — what I’m always drawn to, because you — it’s almost like he’s wearing a toupee, because there’s the top of his head [pointing at JFK’s auburn hair on the very top of his head] and that’s basically the color it should be, and then it’s black, it’s just solid black.

Smith:  You know, the density doesn’t match — the shoulders don’t match that [meaning that the shadow on the back of JFK’s shoulders does not match the black patch on the back of his head] and [the black patch] doesn’t match the top of his head [pointing to JFK’s auburn colored hair on top]….

Smith:  It just seems really obvious that the frames where they’ve matted out the back of the head, and added in the pink splash, the pink water-balloon — whatever it is that’s supposed to be the blood — it’s just not even believable … maybe fifty years ago that might have passed muster, but for anybody — I mean — my impression is if I showed it to a 12-year old kid, they would say it was a cartoon…."

Doug Horne told the story of how Sidney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead became involved in Zapruder film research in his "Addendum: The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood," of his 2009 "Inside the ARRB," Chapter 14, Vol. IV, as follows:

"...On June 3, 2009 I exchanged introductory e-mails with one Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood—specifically, in the marketing of post production services within the motion picture film industry. She has decades of experience under her belt in dealing with editors, experts in film restoration, and film studio executives. She lives and breathes the professional culture of the motion picture film industry, and has working relationships with many of the major players involved in post-production in Hollywood. When she first introduced herself to me she insisted that she was neither a researcher, author, nor a historian; and in spite of her continued self-deprecation, I have explained to her on numerous occasions since that day that she is now indeed a JFK assassination researcher, by simple virtue of what she is doing, whether she ever publishes a word or not! We are what we do, and what Sydney Wilkinson has done is truly extraordinary.

Sydney revealed to me in short order that she had purchased a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives. She did so purely for research purposes, to satisfy her own curiosity about whether or not the extant film in the Archives was the authentic out-of-camera original, or whether it was an altered film masquerading as the original. She had already purchased a copy of the Zavada report from the National Archives and knew its contents backwards and forwards, and was also familiar with the interviews of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC conducted by the ARRB staff in 1997. She was aware of my former role as the ARRB’s liaison with Kodak and Rollie Zavada, and was also very familiar with the existing literature about the film’s possible alteration. In short, she was simply a very curious American citizen who, out of both natural curiosity and a sense of patriotism, wanted to know the truth about this famous film. She had literally “put her money where her mouth was” by forking out $ 795.90 for a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from a source whose honesty and integrity could not be challenged by any future researchers: the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print. She wanted a dupe negative because her intent from the beginning was to subject the Zapruder film to the serious, professional scrutiny of Hollywood film professionals in an attempt to resolve the ongoing debate about its authenticity. Sydney’s attitude going into this effort was similar to my own attitude about the Zapruder film when I began working for the ARRB in 1995; she was very curious about the issues that had been raised about the Zapruder film’s authenticity, and simply wanted to know the answer, one way or the other.

I was stunned by the simplicity and power of the concept behind her ongoing research effort: only Hollywood visual effects technicians or other film professionals familiar with the optical effects techniques of the 1960s would be truly qualified to say whether or not there was evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film’s image content! While Rollie Zavada was a film chemist and a Kodak project manager (and was eminently qualified to study film density and edge print), he had no practical experience with the creation of motion picture visual effects, and I therefore viewed him as unqualified to make a final determination as to whether or not the Zapruder film was an altered film. (The ARRB’s senior management understood this also, which was why he was not asked to comment upon the film’s image content in his limited authenticity study.) I immediately wondered:

Why hadn’t anyone ever attempted this before? If anyone had attempted it before 2003 (the year that Monaco in San Francisco made the Forensic Copy of the extant film for NARA), the only tool available for study in Hollywood would have been a multi-generation bootleg copy of one of the Moses Weitzman blowups (from 8 mm to 35 mm) made circa 1968; because the provenance of the bootleg copy would have been suspect, so would any results obtained from such a study. If anyone had attempted this subsequent to 2003, neither Sydney nor I was aware of such an effort. Intuitively,

I felt that this was a “first.” A big first. For about thirty years, from 1963 to 1993, the Zapruder film’s authenticity was assumed, and went largely unquestioned, and the principal arguments about the film had been about what its image content depicted. For about the past fifteen years, most of the arguments pertaining to the film had been about its authenticity, not about its image content. The beauty of Syd Wilkinson’s research effort was not only that qualified Hollywood professionals would now be assessing the extant film’s image content to determine whether any frames showed evidence of alteration, but that the provenance of the film being studied could not be questioned! She was not going to be asking Hollywood to study a bootleg copy: she had a bonafide, genuine, guaranteed, unaltered copy of the extant film in the Archives. Truth is often the daughter of time. Conducting this kind of study was an idea whose time had come, and such a study was now overdue. I could hardly believe my good fortune at being included in her research effort.

Sydney then stunned me by saying that someone close to her who was an editor had arranged for an HD (high-definition) digital scan of each frame on her dupe negative, and that the HD scan was already completed. The HD scan of each 35 mm frame contained 1080 pixels in the vertical dimension and 1920 pixels in the horizontal direction, literally a wealth of information. Furthermore, the HD scan performed of each frame was a so-called “flat” or “exposure neutral” scan, in which the film’s images were NOT manipulated to make them more pleasing to the eye (as MPI did with its Ektachrome transparencies taken of each frame in 1997). Wilkinson and her editor friend instructed the person who performed the HD scan not to “clip the whites” or “crush the blacks” when conducting the scan. Such practices are commonly employed by video editors during post-production to make films more visually appealing, but when this occurs detail and valuable information is lost.

The HD scan created of the dupe negative of the Zapruder film was neutral, meaning that it was not shaded or manipulated for artistic or aesthetic purposes, and that there was a maximum of detail to study from each film frame.

And in two frames in particular, those details were apparently stunning, and quite damning. Sydney e-mailed to me JPEG images of two of the HD scans—frames 220 and 317. What I saw was electrifying, and certainly appeared to me at first blush (as they had to Sydney and a close associate of hers who is a video editor) to be evidence that the extant Zapruder film was an altered film, something I had just concluded, for a host of reasons, earlier in this chapter...."

Doug Horne provided a synopsis with additional details in his online essay entitled "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" 

"...Altered Head Wound Imagery: 

California resident Sydney Wilkinson purchased a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from the National Archives in 2008—a third generation rendition, according to the Archives—and with the assistance of her husband, who is a video editor at a major post-production film house in Hollywood, commissioned both “HD” scans (1920 x 1080 pixels per scan) of each frame of the dupe negative, as well as “6K” scans of each frame. Because the Zapruder film’s image, from edge to edge, only partially fills each 35 mm film frame obtained from the Archives, the so-called “6K” scan of each frame is therefore ‘only’ the equivalent of a “4K” image, i.e., 4096 x 3112 pixels, for each Zapruder frame imaged. Each Zapruder frame scan still constitutes an enormous amount of information: 72.9 MB, or 12.7 million pixels per frame. These “4K equivalent” scans of the Zapruder film used by this couple to conduct their forensic, scientific study of the assassination images are 10-bit log color DPX scans, otherwise known in common parlance as “flat scans.”

These logarithmic color scans bring out much more information in the shadows than would the linear color normally viewed on our television screens and computers. Therefore, much more information in each Zapruder film frame is revealed by these logarithmic scans, than would be revealed in a linear color scan of the same frame.

As reported in the author’s book, numerous Hollywood film industry editors, colorists, and restoration experts have viewed the “6K” scans of the Zapruder film as part of the couple’s ongoing forensic investigation.

In the logarithmic color scans there are many frames (notably 317, 321, and 323) which show what appear to be “black patches,” or crude animation, obscuring the hair on the back of JFK’s head. The blacked-out areas just happen to coincide precisely with the location of the avulsed, baseball-sized exit wound in the right rear of JFK’s head seen by the Parkland Hospital treatment staff, in Dallas, on the day he was assassinated. In the opinion of virtually all of the dozens of motion picture film professionals who have viewed the Zapruder film “6K” scans, the dark patches do not look like natural shadows, and appear quite anomalous. Some of these film industry professionals—in particular, two film restoration experts accustomed to looking at visual effects in hundreds of 1950s and 1960s era films—have declared that the aforementioned frames are proof that the Zapruder film has been altered, and that it was crudely done.[35]If true, this explains LIFE’s decision to suppress the film as a motion picture for twelve years, lest its alteration be discovered by any professionals using it in a broadcast.

The extant Zapruder film also depicts a large head wound in the top and right side of President Kennedy’s skull—most notably in frames 335 and 337—that was not seen by any of the treatment staff at Parkland Hospital.

The implication here is that if the true exit wound on President Kennedy’s head can be obscured in the Zapruder film through use of aerial imaging (i.e., self-matting animation, applied to each frame’s image via an animation stand married to an optical printer)—as revealed by the “6K” scans of the 35 mm dupe negative—then the same technique could be used to add a desired exit wound, one consistent with the cover story of a lone shooter firing from behind.

The apparent alteration of the Zapruder film seen in the area of the rear of JFK’s head in the “6K” scans is consistent with the capabilities believed to have been in place at “Hawkeyeworks” in 1963.

In a recent critique of the author’s Zapruder film alteration hypothesis, retired Kodak film chemist (and former ARRB consultant, from 1997-1998), Roland Zavada, quoted professor Raymond Fielding, author of the famous 1965 textbook mentioned above on visual special effects, as saying that it would be impossible for anyone to have altered an 8 mm film in 1963 without leaving artifacts that could be easily detected. I completely agree with this assessment attributed to professor Fielding, and I firmly believe that the logarithmic color, “6K,” 10-bit, DPX scans made of each frame of the 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film have discovered just that: blatant and unmistakable artifacts of the film’s alteration.

Critics of this ongoing forensic investigation in California have tried to dismiss the interim findings by displaying other, dissimilar images from the Zapruder film that have been processed in linear color (not logarithmic color), and in some cases are also using inferior images of the Zapruder film of much poorer resolution than the 6K scans, or images from the film in which the linear color contrast has been adjusted and manipulated (i.e., darkened).

Saying that “it just isn’t so” is not an adequate defense for those who desperately cling to belief in the Zapruder film’s authenticity, when the empirical proof (the untainted and raw imagery) exists to back up the fact that it is so.

Anyone else who purchases a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from the National Archives for $795.00, and who expends the time and money to run “6K” scans of each frame, will end up with the same imagery Sydney Wilkinson has today, for her scans simply record what is present on the extant film in the National Archives; she and her husband have done nothing to alter the images in any way. Their scans simply record what is present on the extant film...."

https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ 

In November 2010, Sidney Wilkinson encountered a problem with the Sixth Floor Museum -- that should raise some eyebrows -- which derailed her production plan for her documentary. The short version of that story is told by Dr. David Mantik in the following video:

VIDEO IS QUEUED TO 27:46 WHERE DR. DAVID MANTIK TELLS THE STORY OF SYDNEY WILKINSON AND THEIR VISITS TO THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM TO EXAMINE THE 5 x 7 TRANSPARENCIES FROM THE ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM https://youtu.be/hlGaFMvZEI8?t=1666

And the following is the long version of the story:

Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik, and Sydney Wilkinson on apparent fraud in Zapruder film transparencies committed while in the custody of the Sixth Floor Museum:

'MASQUERADE AT THE MUSEUM'

Excerpt from 'THE JFK ASSASSINATION DECODED: Criminal Forgery in the Autopsy Photographs and X-rays' by David Mantik, MD, PhD.

April 15, 2013

Revised November 2021

David W. Mantik (DM) and Sydney Wilkinson (SW)

 

INTRODUCTION (DM)

 

Within several years of the JFK assassination, David Lifton had been captivated by the Zapruder images81 following frame Z-313 " ...because the back of the head seemed all blacked out."82 Curiously, this was several years before he began to suspect that the entire film had been (illegally) edited. He recalls that when Wesley Liebeler (in 1967) had ordered the 4x5 inch transparencies from LIFE magazine for his class (see further discussion of these below) the back of the head still lacked detail.83 In June 1970, under the ruse of a possible purchase, Time-Life permitted Lifton and colleagues to examine multiple film items at their Beverly Hills office. These included 4x5 inch transparencies, an 8 mm film, a 16 mm film and a 35 mm film.84 The back of the head still seemed blacked out to Lifton, which was also consistent with the LIFE magazine images.

 

On that occasion, Lifton viewed the frames after Z-334 (the last one published by the Warren Commission) and discovered that the supposed right facial wound of JFK (not seen by anyone at Parkland) was enormous-and that it appeared merely to be artwork. Provoked by this, Lifton then studied "Insert Matte Photography" and suggested that the "blacking out" effect might also be artwork.

 

The blacked-out posterior skull was radically inconsistent with the recollections of the Parkland physicians. More to the point, though, it was also thoroughly inconsistent with their contemporaneous notes, which are included in the Warren Report. These professionals uniformly recalled a right posterior skull defect about the size of an orange. These doctors also (uniformly) disagreed with the autopsy photographs, which, like the Zapruder film, showed no posterior skull defect. In fact, this disagreement (about the hole in the back of the head) was so scandalous that I listed sixteen Parkland physicians85 who stated that the autopsy photographs86) were distinctly different from what they recalled. On the contrary, no physician who saw the autopsy photographs (of the back of the head) immediately recognized them.

 

Based on my own viewing of the autopsy photographs and X-rays on multiple occasions at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and greatly assisted by optical density measurements made directly on JFK's X­ rays at NARA, I proposed a skull reconstruction87 with a large upper occipital defect. In addition, an adjoining site just to the right of this defect) appeared to be a bone flap that could swing open or closed, which was consistent with the recollections of Dr. Robert McClelland. In fact, McClelland had approved a sketch for Josiah Thompson, which was accompanied by his own pertinent quotation about the bone flap.88 Based on these considerations, even if one accepted an intact (or nearly intact) posterior scalp (i.e., just the soft tissue), a fairly large posterior skull defect could no longer be denied. Curiously enough, such a bony defect was in fact, also consistent with the drawings by autopsy pathologist J. Thornton Boswell.89

 

So now the question became obvious: How could the scalp appear so intact in the Zapruder film (and in the autopsy photographs), while an obvious defect was seen at Parkland Hospital (at least in the bone, but probably also in the scalp)? Actually, the problem lay even deeper than that: The ancillary autopsy personnel (at Bethesda) agreed with the Parkland witnesses-they also recalled a large hole in the posterior skull.90 Photographs of these witnesses--from both Parkland and Bethesda--consistently illustrated the hole and were compiled by Robert Groden.91

 

The issue of a posterior skull defect is not a mere curiosity--on the contrary, it goes to the very heart of the JFK assassination case. Such a defect clearly implies a frontal shot, and therefore unavoidably means conspiracy. If the forensic evidence had to be altered (to cover-up a conspiracy), then this posterior defect was an indispensable target for alteration.

 

The remainder of this essay is a first-person account of our mutual attempts to decipher this paradox of JFK s posterior skull especially as seen in the Zapruder film.

 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF OUR 35MM DUPLICATE NEGATIVE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM (SW)

 

In 2008, my partner (and husband), Thom Whitehead, sold our startup editing company to Deluxe Film Labs. Thom was hired to oversee their newly created editorial department in Burbank, and I chose a new path. After spending over twenty years in sales and development in the post-production industry, I was ready for a new challenge.

 

I have been interested in the JFK assassination history for decades. In 1978, I spent a memorable college semester in Washington, D.C., working as a congressional intern and studying the activities of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). One of the key subjects that piqued my interest was the iconic Zapruder film. In 2008, I rekindled my interest and began to read about the film with a renewed vigor. I was surprised to discover there were serious concerns about its authenticity. Most notably, there had never been a truly independent, forensic, imaging study---one that was not connected to a government or private entity. It suddenly dawned on me that I might have a golden opportunity to delve deeper into the film imagery by utilizing the resources of Deluxe Labs92--one of the largest and most prestigious professional film labs in history. We knew they would allow us to use any/all of their state-of-the-art film and digital technology. Additionally, considering that Thom and I had spent years working with the top film restoration and post-production experts in the world, I felt confident we would be able to solicit their professional, unbiased guidance. With the absolute best technology and talent available at the time, all we needed was the best possible film element to study.

 

In November 2008, we purchased a 35mm duplicate negative (dupe neg) of the "forensic version' of the Zapruder "camera original" 8 mm film housed at NARA. It is a US government authorized and certified, third generation film copy. To our surprise, and to the best of our knowledge (as of 2018), it is the only third generation 35mm dupe neg acquired for the purpose of an independent, expert evaluation since NARA made such elements available to the public in 2003.

 

The following is a brief timeline of the steps I had to take to acquire our 35 mm dupe neg from NARA. It took eight months, and they certainly did not make it convenient, or cost effective in 2008. I hope they have simplified the process since then.

1. I called NARA in March 2008 and was referred to James Mathis, PhD Archivist, Special Access and FOIA Staff. I asked him about access to the original Zapruder film for a potential documentary film project, and what I needed to do in order to purchase the best possible film copy for research purposes. I was baffled when he informed me that the first step (for some forever unexplained reason) was to purchase a copy of the (Roland) Zavada Report93 that had been commissioned by the Assassination Records and Review Board (ARRB) during its tenure. He said NARA considered the report to be the definitive work on the authenticity of the Zapruder film and only after I had carefully read it, and still had questions would they consider moving forward with my request. I did not know any better at the time, so I paid $553.50 for a photocopy of the Zavada Report94 and read all of it--well, at least, the pages that were legible. (The black and white photographic prints of versions of the Zapruder film were useless.)

2. A few months later, I called Leslie Waffen, who at the time was Branch Chief of the Sound and Motion Picture Branch at Archives II, in College Park, Maryland. I introduced myself and told him I had read the Zavada Report and would like to move forward with purchasing a 35mm duplicate negative film copy of the original Zapruder film. To my surprise, he said he had no idea why I had been told I needed to buy, and read, the Zavada Report before moving forward. Really? He explained that my next step was to get written permission from the Sixth Floor Museum95 who owned the copyright to the Zapruder film.

3. In August, I contacted the Sixth Floor Museum and spoke with Gary Mack, who referred me to Megan Bryant. I explained to her that, presently, we were going to use the 35mn dupe neg for research purposes only but were hoping to eventually include it in documentary project sometime in the future. I understood that she would send me the licensing fees if that came to fruition. I followed her instructions on how to obtain their official authorization by completing the 'Formal Reproduction Request" form on their web site, followed by multiple phone conversations with Ms. Bryant.

4. In October, the Sixth Floor Museum approved my request and Ms. Bryant faxed an authorization letter directly to Mr. Waffen at NARA.

5. A few days later, Mr. Waffen96 gave me the names of three ARA­ authorized post-production facilities from which to order our film element directly. I contacted all three, but only one facility (Colorlab film transfers. I paid $795 directly to them and received our film via FedEx a few weeks later.

According to NARA, the film element used to complete my transfer was their 35mm Intermediate (or "reproduction") copy, which is an interpositive,97 silent, color film descended from the direct blow-up 35mm Internegative. NARA considered it to be a "preservation master." At that time, they offered two versions to the public: (1) a "forensic” version--a 35mm, direct optical blow-up Internegative (without any image improvement) from Zapruder's 8mm camera "original,"98 and (2) a “de-scratched" version--a 35mm film element that has been "cleaned up" to look visually appealing. The latter effectively removes dirt and scratches via "a diffused light source in analog printing instead of using a traditional wet-gate method.99 We chose the forensic version because we wanted to work with unadulterated images--as close to the "original" as possible--where nothing had been done to enhance or improve them in any way.

 

TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF OUR 6K SCANS (SW)

 

We scanned our 35mm dupe neg directly to 6k files using a Northlight film scanner. At the time, the Northlight scanner was instrumental in the production of Hollywood films and was considered state-of-the-art technology in post­ production.100 It created digital files from the optical image of a film. Great care was accorded to this process in a post-production environment because the introduction of any artifacts or discontinuities could ruin the day for a film director or director of photography. The digital file that is created must replicate exactly the image on the film and reveal all the information present on each film frame.

 

Due to the relatively small size of the original 8mm Zapruder film (when viewing the entire 35 mm frame on the dupe neg) we decided to scan at Northlight’s maximum available scan size of 6k. The 6k refers to a size of 6144 x 4668 pixels with an effective size of 114.7 Mb of digital data per frame. To put this into perspective, a home HDTV only presents 1920 x 1080 pixels with about 9.7 Mb per frame. Therefore, our scans have more than ten times the resolution and data size as an HD television image. This additional resolution allowed us to electronically zoom into the image without any apparent loss of detail or fidelity. Finally, we could see down to the grain of the 8mm film with complete sharpness and detail--including all of the inter-sprocket and edge areas. As far as we know, the Zapruder film had never been reproduced or studied at this level of digital resolution.

 

Another important aspect of our scanning process was the use of logarithmic color space, rather than linear color space. This is critical because the use of logarithmic color allows all the color information of the image to be present in the scans, preserving all of the highlight and shadow information. Linear color is what we are accustomed to seeing on TV and computer screens. Although linear color looks correct/normal and lifelike to our eyes, very bright and dark areas of the image must be "clipped" in order to make the majority of the image appear correctly. Logarithmic color, although looking to the untrained eye as "muddy" or "flat," is actually the best way to retain all of the color information in the film.

 

Finally we used the film industry standard "DPX" (Digital Picture eXchange)101 format to allow easy transfers between various professional workstations. One of the state-of-the-art workstations we continue to use is an Autodesk product called Smoke.102

 

THE MPI IMAGES (DM)103

 

In 1997 with Douglas Home of the ARRB staff serving as a neutral observer, MPI's designated film contractor, Mccrone Associates, photographed each frame of the extant Zapruder film at the NARA, using large format (4 x 5 inch) Kodak 6121 color positive transparency duplicating film. Those MPI transparencies constituted first generation copies of each frame in the extant film. The extant film is considered to be generation zero. This MPI process had its own shortcomings104 but following their creation these images should have been the best available to the public. (Later, MPI digitized, manipulated, and reassembled the in1ages as a motion picture, creating a product titled "Image of an Assassination" on both VHS tape and DVD, which has been available for purchase by the public since 1998.) The so-called “MPI transparencies" created by McCrone associates were physically transferred to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas in January of 2000. This followed the donation and legal transfer of the film's copyright, and the LMH Company's film elements, from LMH Co. to the Museum in December of 1999. From 2000 through 2009, upon appropriate request, these MPI transparencies--true first-generation copies (of the extant film), in large format-were available for public viewing at the Museum.

 

INSIDE THE ARRB, A 5-VOLUME MASTERPIECE BY DOUGLAS HORNE (DM)

 

Appearing in late November 2009, this five-volume encyclopedic work by a former staff member of the ARRB contained images of several Zapruder frames--based on Wilkinson's 6k scans. In particular, Figure 88 in Volume I (an image of Z-317) showed a black geometric patch over the back of JFK's head. (See the image below.) Even in the low-resolution format of a paperback, its borders were preternaturally sharp and well defined, far more than would be expected of a normal shadow.

 

Several months before publication of his book, Home advised me that he planned to visit Thom and Sydney in Los Angeles, so in August 2009, he invited me to their joint viewing.105 While in the film laboratory for several hours, they explained their 6k scans to us. Horne had also viewed them on a prior occasion with three Hollywood professionals. I was particularly fascinated by how unnatural the black patch looked:

 

• After frame Z-313, this area was clearly darker than before Z-313; before Z-313, JFK's hair looked auburn.

 

• The edges of the patch were unnaturally sharp.

 

• Before and after frame Z-313, the back of Connally's head (in a similar shadow as JFK's head) did not show anything like a black patch.

 

SYDNEY SEES THE MPI TRANSPARENCIES AT THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM (SW)

 

On Friday, November 20 2009, during the weekend of the annual JFK symposium meetings, David Mantik and I met for an appointment at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. I was very excited because we were going to view the first generation Ektachrome transparencies created by MPI in 1997. We were told they were made directly from Zapruder's 8mm camera "original," which meant they were first generation and should have been sharper than our 35mm dupe neg (third generation). According to the Museum, these MPI transparencies were included in a deed of gift from the Zapruder family in December of 1999, along with the copyright to the Zapruder film (and other important Zapruder film elements) from Time-Life, Inc. My primary goal was to determine if the MPI transparencies showed the same anomalies seen on our scans. I was prepared for either outcome.

 

David and I were given a loupe and light box to carefully look at each transparency. Words cannot describe how stunned I was when I viewed the head shot, frame Z-313, and the frames immediately following. The resolution was beyond anything I expected. Especially, in frames Z-317, Z-321, Z-323, Z-335 and Z-337, the solid, black' patch" that is clearly seen on our 6k scans--covering the right rear area of JFK's head--was even more egregious on the MPI transparencies. It was all I could do to muzzle my emotions. There was no doubt the MPI transparencies corroborated the obvious anomalies seen on our scans. Most importantly, they clearly depicted what should be on the extant Zapruder film housed at NARA.

 

DAVID REPORTS ON THE SAME VISIT (WITH SYDNEY) IN 2009 (DM)

 

While Gary Mack sat nearby, my first impression was the same as Sydney's--the resolution and color were so incredible that I felt as if I were seeing these frames for the very first time. But the greatest emotional impact came on seeing the black patch in Z-317. It was so blatant, so childishly done, that I almost laughed aloud. Whether I did or not is in some doubt, but I retain an image of clapping my hand over my mouth to prevent such a laugh.106 I was also easily able to verify the other abnormalities that Home had reported in his book, published just a week later in November 2009.

 

SYDNEY RETURNS TO THE MUSEUM IN 2010 (SW)

 

The following year, in November 2010, I returned to the newly finished Sixth Floor Museum reading room in order to view the same MPI transparencies. Thom was able to join me and I was excited to show him the stunning clarity of the back of JFK's head i.e., the "black patch," on the frames we had been studying for months. This time, I was definitely not prepared for what I saw when I looked through the loupe. Not only were the transparencies much larger in size physically, than the ones I had viewed the previous year with David, but none of them were as clear and sharp. Not even close. Most importantly, and suspiciously, the flagrant image of the black "patch" was gone. Instead, the back of JFK s head appeared to show a natural shadow--what Thom called "fuzzied up"--without the straight and well-demarcated edges I had seen in 2009. We were both stunned. Furthermore the black patch was not nearly so obvious in this supposed first generation copy as it was in our third generation 6k copy. That made no sense whatever to me. Despite being assured by the museum they were the same transparencies that David and I saw the previous year, there is absolutely no doubt that they were not. To this day, Thom and I wonder if those transparencies had been altered.

 

INTO THE FRAY: DAVID RETURNS TO THE MUSEUM IN 2012 (DM)

 

Shortly after her 2010 visit to the Museum, Sydney telephoned me, sounding anguished and upset. She described the overwhelming shock caused by her most recent visit. I assured her that I stood by the impressions we had both received in 2009, particularly of the black patch. I promised to visit again--to assess her most recent impressions. During this several-year hiatus (2009-2012) at least two other individuals visited the Museum and saw no black patch. The Museum will not disclose the names of any visitors, but Sydney had met retired Kodak film chemist Roland Zavada outside the viewing room on that same day in 2010. (Zavada had lectured at a JFK symposium that day.107) And author Josiah Thompson reported on his visit, which occurred at about that same time--if not the same day.

 

My second opportunity finally arrived during the annual JFK symposia meetings in November 2012. On the chance that the black patch might re-appear I asked author Peter Jaruley to accompany me on November 16, so that he could serve as another witness. (Sydney was not in Dallas at the time.) The verdict came quickly-the patch in Z-317, and conspicuously present in other frames such as Z- 321 and Z-323, had vanished. Neither Peter nor I saw it. The back of JFK's head appeared little different from all those images I had seen before (excepting for Sydney's 6k images). The powerful emotional response of 2009 did not recur. Furthermore, the back of JFK's head did not show the patently obvious patch I had seen on Sydney's 6k scans. Unlike Sydney, I did not perceive the transparencies I viewed in 2012 to be larger in size than those I viewed in 2009; my impression is that they were simply displayed differently, i.e., in different mountings. The important thing is that we both noted that the anomalies present in 2009 had disappeared in the MPI transparencies we viewed in 2010 and 2012. Before leaving the Museum, I pointedly asked Megan Bryant (Gary Mack was absent) if these were the same images that she had shown me in 2009. She claimed they were.

 

MPI SUMMARY (SW and DM)

 

It is most likely that the images shown to Josiah Thompson and Roland Zavada were the same ones that Sydney and Thom saw in 2010 and that David saw in 2012. If so, then neither of these men has ever viewed the images that Sydney and David saw together at the Museum in 2009. It would have been most enlightening if either Thompson or Zavada could have joined us in 2009.

 

Of course, the relationship between the release date of Horne's book (late November 2009), and our Museum visit in late November 2009 is most peculiar. Our 2009 visit had occurred about one week before the release of Horne's book! In retrospect, this timing appears noteworthy (if not ominous): Was the Museum caught off guard by our visit? Was the Museum's staff oblivious to the purpose of our visit-possibly because they were still unacquainted with Sydney and Thom's research and because they had not yet seen Figure 88 (Z-317) in Horne's book? Even more to the point: It is our impression that we were the first to see these MPI images at the Museum.

 

What strikes both of us as most anomalous is the wonderful clarity of Sydney's 6k scans--which are only a third generation--versus the (currently) less impressive "first generation" MPI images now housed at the Museum (but present only after our 2009 visit). This discrepancy makes no sense to either of us. It would be most useful if Sydney's 6k scans could be taken into the Museum viewing room to be compared side by side with the MPI images, but that is not allowed. Nor were we permitted to record any images of the MPI transparencies, either via camera or scanner--so we have only our memories.

 

A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE -- THE TIME/LIFE TRANSPARENCIES (DM)

 

The Time-Life transparencies might resolve this paradox. Josiah Thompson had worked with these images and had photographed them while working for LIFE magazine. He used them as models for the sketches in his book, Six Seconds in Dallas. He was kind enough to loan these negatives to me, which I converted into prints. Oddly, Z-317 is missing from my set,108 although Thompson has posted an image of Z-317 online, presumably from his own set. The other images in my Thompson set do not show an obvious black patch.

 

On January 26, 2000, the Dallas Morning News published an article, "Zapruders Donate JFK Film, Rights," written by reporter Mark Wrolstad, who stated:

Gary Mack, the Museum’s Archivist, was all but whistling Tuesday as he examined what may be the gem of the bunch--oversized transparencies of each Zapruder film frame believed to have been made in 1963 or 1964.

The article notes that Mack was actually (contemporaneously) examining these images--not that he expected to do so at a later time. Mack also stated:

These may be in better condition than the original film is today. We may have something better or sharper, Who knows?

Now, however, we are left to wonder: Had Wrolstad merely invented this story?109 We are confronted with this bizarre question because the Museum (see e­ mail below) explains what supposedly happened: "From [a] misunderstanding, the Museum issued an inaccurate press release on January 25, 2000." Curiously, Mark Wrolstad has not responded to Doug Horne's two written attempts in 2011 to clarify this critical misunderstanding.

 

So here is the problem: the Museum now claims that they never received the 1963/1964 Time/Life transparencies--and also that they don't know where they are now. Here are responses that I received from Megan Bryant (at the Museum). It is my impression that the following statements are for public consumption.

Subject: Time/Life Transparencies

Friday, Nov 16, 2012, 12:59 PM, Megan Bryant<MeganB@jfk.org> wrote: Dr. Mantik,

After your visit today I checked my files to see if we had previously communicated regarding the question of the Time-Life 1963/64 transparencies. It does not appear that we have, so allow me to clarify our conversation from this morning:

The Sixth Floor Museum does not have-and never did have-4"x5" color transparencies prepared by Time-LIFE in 1963/1964 from the 8mm original Abraham Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. The collection donated to the Museum in December 1999 by the Zapruder family did include the 4x5 color transparencies made in March 1997 for the MPI Media video project titled Image of an Assassination. Documentation from late December 1999 and early January 2000 confirms the Museum expected to, and did, receive these MPI transparencies from the Zapruder family.

Just prior to the December 1999 acquisition, an inventory provided to the Museum listed an additional 27 4x5 color LIFE transparencies. That, in combination with a verbal comment by Zapruder family lawyer Jamie Silverberg, was misinterpreted to mean the collection would include, simply, LIFE transparencies. From that misunderstanding, the Museum issued an inaccurate press release on January 25, 2000. Museum curator Gary Mack repeated the information to Dallas Morning News reporter Mark Wrolstad and his article appeared the next day. Soon after receiving the donation, but after the press release appeared, Mr. Mack confirmed that the Museum did in fact receive the MPI 1997 transparencies. They included unique reference numbers added by MPI photographers in 1997 to identify specific frames of the film.

Recently, with the assistance of retired Kodak scientist Roland Zavada, the Museum learned that the other 4x5 transparencies in the donation were made on film stock manufactured in 1965 or possibly 1966. Whether they were part of a complete series of frames is unknown, as the donation did not include any explanatory Time-LIFE records.

The whereabouts today of the 1963/1964 Time-LIFE transparencies is not known to The Sixth Floor Museum. Time-LIFE may have records indicating what happened to them.

I believe this should address your question on that particular matter. Thank you,

Megan

Megan P Bryant

Director of Collections & Intellectual Property The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza 411 Elm Street

Dallas, TX 75202-3308

Phone: 214.747.6660ext. 5519

Fax: 214.747.6662

Website: www.jfk.org

On 12/13/12, Megan Bryant<Megan8@jfk.org> wrote:

Dear Dr. Mantik,

While the information provided below regarding the Time-LIFE transparencies isn't intended as an official statement of any kind, by all means, if you can help clarify any misperceptions in the research community about the whereabouts of the transparencies, please do feel free to share the information with other researchers-but only in its entirety please. We, as much as you, are interested in knowing the whereabouts of the 63/64 Time-LIFE transparencies, and if clarifying that they are not in the Museum's holdings can help that along, we're all for it.

Regards,

Megan P Bryant

Director of Collections & Intellectual Property The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza 411 Elm Street

Dallas, TX 75202-3308

Phone: 214.747.6660 ext. 5519

Fax: 214.747.6662

DM: So today no one knows where these Time/Life transparencies are located. On April 10, 1997, Doug Home saw a large stack of 4 x 5-inch color positive transparencies of the Zapruder film (with each frame surrounded by a black border) in the office of Jamie Silverberg,110 while working for the ARRB. The transparencies sighted by Doug Home in 1997 were not on Silverberg's typed inventory list of film elements and were only produced after persistent inquiries by Home about their possible existence. But now none of these men--not Home, not Zavada, not Thompson, nor even Gary Mack--can point to their location. 111

 

Before surrendering, I wanted to ascertain whether or not the Time/Life transparencies had, after all, been donated to the Museum. So, I asked the Museum one last question: Could I see the Deed of Gift (circa December 30, 1999) or the complete inventory (or catalog), which was probably prepared in 2000-or any copies of these two items? The Museum, however, responded that these were private documents and were therefore not available for my review-nor could I see copies!

 

CONCLUSIONS (DM and SW)

 

Even if both of us had suddenly lost our senses (oddly at the same moment) in 2009 Sydney's 6k scans still exist--and so does the quite obvious "Mask of Death" in Z-317. Furthermore, anyone can still purchase their own copy via NARA. To our knowledge, at least two other documentarians have done so. Sydney has graciously shown her 6k scans to friend and foe alike. Alarmingly some foes have unexpectedly declined to view them saying that they already know what they will see! This reminds us of Galileo's enemies, who likewise refused to look through his telescope,112 but instead chose to believe that theological reasoning, based on texts of Scripture (a la the Warren Report), was the only road to reality. In effect, the truth was out there, but they preferred blindfolds.

 

In short, this mindset persists today--even though we oxymoronically (and self­ referentially) label ourselves as Homo sapiens.

-------------------------------------------------------

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Douglas Horne 113

 

What is at stake here is nothing less than historical truth. When an institution that presents itself as a museum--purportedly a guardian of history-­ replaces vital film evidence of President Kennedy's assassination (which apparently contained prima facie evidence of that film's blatant alteration) with substitute evidence (in which the blatant alterations have disappeared), a willful attempt has been made to alter history. The authentic MPI transparencies were available to the public from 2000 until late 2009, a long interval during which the museum's staff was apparently oblivious to what they owned. Following the publication of my five-volume set, Inside the ARRB, in late November of 2009, just one week after David Mantik and Sydney Wilkinson examined the MPI transparencies, the public (and presumably key members of the Museum's staff) awoke to what was at stake here. Here is what likely triggered this aggressive Museum response: Just prior to publication, I had added an addendum to my Zapruder film chapter about the anomalies discovered in Sydney Wilkinson's scans and had actually included an image of Z-317 in my book, as well. (See this image below.)

 

Was the Sixth Floor Museum, the unapologetic and ardent defender of the Warren Commission's conclusions (that a lone malcontent murdered President Kennedy), going to keep on display powerful evidence of the alteration of the single most important assassination record, the Zapruder film? This was the operative question after my book was published. The implications of the obvious alterations found in the 6k scans, and in the MPI transparencies in 2009 were clear: the true exit wound on President Kennedy's head (in the right rear, just where the Parkland Hospital treatment staff had reported it) had been intentionally obscured in the Zapruder film (likely during 1963), in an attempt to hide evidence of crossfire in Dealey Plaza and therefore of conspiracy. (An exit wound in the rear of JFK's head pointed to a fatal shot from the front and therefore multiple shooters, i.e., conspiracy.) Powerful evidence that the Zapruder film had been altered for the purpose of hiding this exit wound-anomalies in the film that provided virtual proof of the Zapruder film's alteration-would also constitute evidence of a cover-up of major proportions soon after the assassination occurred, something almost as disturbing as the assassination itself.

 

Restating the question above, “Was this institution, the Sixth Floor Museum, willing to display powerful evidence that would invalidate the Museum's own conclusions about the assassination, or would they instead abandon the interests of historical truth and pursue their own longstanding bias?"

 

In 2010 and in 2012 Sydney Wilkinson and David Mantik received the answer to this question. The events described in this essay call into serious question the true purpose of the Museum, and cause us to ask "Is the Museum a repository of truth, or an agent of political and historical spin, i.e., a mere disseminator of propaganda?"

 

Two specific Museum employees (Gary Mack114 and Megan Bryant) were in charge of the Museum's film holdings and were in responsible positions when the MPI transparencies and other film elements from the LMH Co. were received in January of 2000 (as evidenced by the Mark Wrolstad article in the Dallas Morning News). Those same two employees were present in 2009 when Sydney and David both observed the same anomalies in the MPI transparencies that were present in the 6k scans. In 2010 and 2012, while Gary Mack apparently no longer felt a need to be present, after what I shall call the "big switch," Megan Bryant was again present.

 

Is it truly plausible that Gary Mack 'misunderstood' the contents of the Deed of Gift to the Sixth Floor Museum from the LMH Company, in addition to "misinterpreting" a verbal comment from Zapruder lawyer, Jamie Silverberg and then carelessly released an inaccurate press release? Sadly, it's unlikely we will ever know. This release had been exhibited on the Sixth Floor Museum website until Doug Home began questioning Mark Wrolstad in 2011 and David Mantik began corresponding with Megan Bryant about it in 2012.

 

What do the events described above say about these two Sixth Floor Museum employees and their integrity?

 

As each reader answers to this question for himself, keep in mind that the best evidence outside of NARA that corroborated the stunning image content in the 6k scans has now disappeared. It has been switched out. We don't know who switched if out, but we certainly know where the switch took place. Meanwhile, this substitute evidence has been shown to two of the foremost defenders of the Zapruder films authenticity: Roland Zavada and Josiah Thompson. And the sanitized images in the substitute MPI transparencies have reinforced the longstanding opinions of these two men-namely, that the film has not been altered. Now both Thompson and Zavada are more certain than ever, based on their viewing of the altered MPI transparencies, that nothing is amiss with the Zapruder film.

 

A former high-level official at Archives II in College Park, Maryland (Leslie Waffen) informed Sydney Wilkinson (circa 2008) that the extant film in cold storage "would never be removed from the freezer again" and there it sits today, further deteriorating with the passage of time. In view of the events described above this policy must change. There is only one way to definitively determine the authenticity of the 6k scans commissioned by Sydney Wilkinson and studied by so many in the Hollywood film industry: compare the 6k scans with the extant film at NARA.

 

A travesty has occurred in Dallas, and it has historical repercussions. The extant 8mm Zapruder film at NARA must be compared to both the 6k scans of the 35mm dupe negative in Hollywood and with the MPI transparencies (currently available for viewing) at the Sixth Floor Museum.

 

Sydney and David and I are not afraid to conduct this test--in fact, we insist on it. The American people should insist on it. Let's do the three-way comparison, with ample witnesses present, movie cameras running, and let the chips fall where they may. The American people deserve to know their true history not a falsified story. END

As for when exactly Alteration will be released, I was very hopeful it would be soon when in 2020 I published the following as a Facebook post:

Technical analysis is on its way in Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's documentary, "Alteration". I don't know the release date, but they provided a screening of a preview of the documentary at the 2019 CAPA Conference and at the 2019 Judyth Baker Conference which is described in this podcast interview of Doug Horne (there is about an hour of very fascinating information on the topic starting at 138:30 https://midnightwriternews.com/?powerpress_pinw=1749-podcast )     

                            
In short, the documentary contains the analyses of Hollywood professionals Paul Rotan, Garrett Smith and Ned Price who are "absolutely convinced that a black patch -- an overlay -- has been added to the back of JFK's head in frame 317 and in other adjacent frames" using an optical printer and aerial imaging process. I won't be able to do justice in a brief FB comment to all the fascinating information that is presented on the topic during the podcast, but for those who are interested in this subject matter I can definitely assure you that it will be worth your time to listen to it. I believe that with the release of the "Alteration" documentary we will be seeing the onset of a paradigm shift concerning the Zapruder film and the issue of authenticity, and am very much looking forward to the debate in the JFK research community that will ensue.

I had a brief text exchange with Tom Whitehead that same year, and he was keeping his cards close to his vest regarding a release date at that time.

My assumption is that they are still working on technical details, such as finding a distributor.

--------------------------------------

WITH REGARD TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LOGARITHMIC AS OPPOSED TO LINEAR COLOR:

Doug Horne provided the following from Sydney Wilkinson during his 2019 podcast interview on the subject (you might want to listen to that podcast for background on where the whole Sydney Wilkinson documentary was at in 2019):  

___________
"Our scans show everything in the frame, the good, the bad, and the ugly." By that they mean the scratches and the mold on the film. They wrote "There is so much detail that individual grains of 8mm film stock are evident in the 6k logarithmic scans. It's hardly pretty, but the images are glaringly sharp. That is why we see all the scratches, mold, dirt, stains, and other film anomalies. Linear color is what we view on our TVs and computers, the color looks right to us. The versions of the Zapruder film we see on television documentaries or DVDs like "Images of an Assassination" sold in 1998 or on YouTube have been cleaned up and color corrected. Much of the scratches, dirt, mold, etc., have been removed along with color correcting each scene to create a much richer looking element. The processes used to do this can be grueling and take a long time depending upon how much money and how much time the producers want to spend on it. But we did not want to make our images look prettier. We did not want to touch anything because our goal was to conduct a forensic scientific study of the film. We wanted to see what was really there in every frame not what might have been hidden or obscured by cleaning or color correcting. So logarithmic color, or log color for short, is what professionals use when coming from or going to film because it brings out much more detail in blacks and mid-blacks by stretching the blacks into grays. However, without color correction, which we have not done, the image looks a little washed out, but the amount of information in the blacks is substantially increased. The primary reason we want log color space was to see all the information in the shadows, and what we saw was astounding. If our transfer was linear color we never would have seen the patch on the back of the head in frame 317 or it would have looked like a shadow. Most importantly, log shadow space does not make a shadow look like a patch."

___________

If you want to hear this for yourself in the Doug Horne podcast, start at 138:30: https://midnightwriternews.com/?powerpress_pinw=1749-podcast   

 

At the Midnight Writer News site for the podcast, you can find the copy of Z-317 that Wilkinson supplied to Horne -- and several others -- embedded in the site, at this link: https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/

___________

Earlier in this thread you posed the following very insightful question:

"...But my question is this: why didn't the same mark-ups appear in the versions Tink Thompson used in 1967?" https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30120-so-is-david-liftons-final-charade-just-going-to-be-lost-to-history/?do=findComment&comment=527815

I consulted my copy of Six Seconds in Dallas searching for an answer, and found that Z-317 isn't even listed in the index.

On Friday, November 20, 2009, Dr. David Mantik and Sydney Wilmington had visited the Sixth Floor Museum to view the first generation Ektachrome transparencies of the Zapruder film created by MPI in 1997 and had found the back of the head black patch to be particularly stunning in those, especially in frame 317. Mantik wrote the following about that visit in "Masquerade as the Museum" (posted by me earlier in this thread via the link above):

"While Gary Mack sat nearby, my first impression was the same as Sydney's--the resolution and color were so incredible that I felt as if I were seeing these frames for the very first time. But the greatest emotional impact came on seeing the black patch in Z-317. It was so blatant, so childishly done, that I almost laughed aloud. Whether I did or not is in some doubt, but I retain an image of clapping my hand over my mouth to prevent such a laugh.106 I was also easily able to verify the other abnormalities that Home had reported in his book, published just a week later in November 2009."

The following week, Doug Horne's "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" was published, with its last minute "Addendum: The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood," focusing on the discovery of the black patches. Then, when Sidney Wilmington returned to the Sixth Floor Museum with Thom Whitehead the following November to view the transparencies again she found that they had been resized and switched out with another set of transparencies in which the Z-317 black patch anomaly had been "fuzzed out" to make it spear more like a natural shadow.

It was known that the Sixth Floor Museum had acquitted the Time-Life transparencies struck off of the "original" Zapruder film, which Josiah Thompson had worked with, due to a January 26, 2000 Dallas Morning News article entitled "Zapruders Donate JFK Film, Rights," written by reporter Mark Wrolstad, which stated:

Gary Mack, the Museum’s Archivist, was all but whistling Tuesday as he examined what may be the gem of the bunch--oversized transparencies of each Zapruder film frame believed to have been made in 1963 or 1964.

 

The article noted that Mack was actually (contemporaneously) examining these images--not that he expected to do so at a later time. Mack also stated:

 

These may be in better condition than the original film is today. We may have something better or sharper, Who knows?

So Wilkinson sought access to the 1964 transparencies through the Sixth Floor Museum and was told that the article had been the result of a mistaken press release, and that the museum did not actually received the 1963/1964 Time/Life transparencies--and didn't know where they were at the time of Wilkinson's request.

To my knowledge, Wilkinson, Whitehead, Horne and Mantik were never able to locate the Time-Life transparencies, but Horne did have a combative encounter with Josiah Thompson and Rollie Zavada over the authenticity of Z-317 at the November 2013 JFK Lancer conference in Dallas at which Zavada conceded that Z-317 looks like it is an alteration (but says he refuses to believe it because he doesn't know how it could be done).

"...In the breakout session, when Josiah Thompson asked him to display the controversial frame 317 and comment on whether the black object covering the rear of JFK's head was a natural shadow or evidence of alteration, Rollie [Zavada] put up the slide (a very dark, muddy image of 317 with much contrast present---an image greatly inferior to the Hollywood scans of the forensic copy), and then said words to the effect: "It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it." [This is very close to a verbatim quote---guaranteed to be accurate in its substance.]

I and several others, including Leo Zahn of Hollywood, then suggested---demanded, actually---that Rollie display ALL of frame 317---not just the portion showing JFK's head. When this slide was finally displayed, I asked everyone present in the room what explanation those who were against alteration had for the extreme difference in density between the shadow on Governor Connally's head, and the extremely dense and dark (almost D-max) "anomaly" on JFK's head in that same frame. The two so-called "shadows" have absolutely no relation or similarity to each other, yet both men were photographed in the same frame, at the same instant in time, on the same planet, with the same light source (i.e., the sun). The ensuing silence was more profound than that inside the whale that swallowed Jonah. Rollie and Tink had no explanation for this. Nor does anyone else, who believes that the Zapruder film is an unaltered film. The most reasonable, and currently the only known explanation for this paradox in frame 317, is alteration---the blacking out of the true exit wound on the back of JFK's head in that frame, and in many others, with crude animation...."

'JOSIAH THOMPSON AND RULLIE ZAVADA AT JFK LANCER: A CRITICAL REPORT' by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html

The article also delves into Josiah Thompson's conclusion that Z-335 and Z-337 are in his opinion authentic due to their consistency with the autopsy photographs, a conclusion with which Horne strongly disagrees.

To me it appears highly likely that the black patch anomalies would be just as striking in the TIME-LIFE transparencies as they were in the 1997 MPI transparencies, but Thompson missed it, and now with the switcheroo at the Sixth Floor Museum Thompson is even more convinced that there was nothing to miss. It's either that, or Wilkinson, Whitehead, Mantik and Horne are attempting to perpetrate an elaborate hoax against the research community spanning back to 2009 which I don't accept as being a credible alternative scenario.

 

 

Matt Allison wrote:

Quote

What I am asking from everyone here is why there are differences in these; whether it has something to do with copy generation, quality of film, alteration, whatever. I'm just looking for explanations. I have no agenda about this, as I've paid no attention to these claims in the past.

 

The following is from Doug Horne's last minute "Addendum: The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood," in "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board":

"...But frame 317 provides the most damning evidence of apparent film alteration.31 As David Lifton pointed out in his article in Fetzer’s anthology The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, when he first saw a Moses Weitzman 35 mm blowup of the Zapruder film in 1970 (a positive projection print), and again when he was using an Oxberry optical printer in 1990 to copy the Moses Weitzman high-quality 35 mm internegative of the Zapruder film loaned to him by documentary producer Robert Richter, he noticed that the back of JFK’s head in the frames following the head shot seemed unusually dark, and wondered if it had been ‘blacked out’ somehow during the film’s alteration. He was left with a very strong visual impression resulting from many, many hours of work with the film in 1990, during which he was often looking at magnified images of President Kennedy’s head. He talked about this repeatedly with me, and no doubt with others over the years, but no oral conversation could adequately impart the subjective impact of his visual experience. More than once I asked Lifton if his impression that the head had been blacked out could have been caused by looking at deep shadow on the back of JFK’s head, and each time he impatiently insisted: “No way! It was a patch! The back of the head is blacked out in the Zapruder film.” As the old adage says, “seeing is believing,” and in June of 2009, when Sydney Wilkinson forwarded to me a JPEG image of the HD scan of frame 317, I had my own epiphany. (See Figures 87 and 88.)

The image of the limousine’s occupants in the HD scan of frame 317 forwarded to me by Wilkinson was not nearly as dark, or rich in color, as versions I had seen on television over the years, in documentaries. My initial impression (as a non-film person) was that the HD scan image of Z-317 was somehow washed out, or underexposed. As it turns out, I was incorrect; I was looking at a “flat” or “exposure neutral” scan of frame 317 from Sydney’s dupe negative of the extant film in the Archives. It had simply not been adjusted for purposes of aesthetics to make it more pleasing to the eye. What I saw was stunning. The lower half of the back of JFK’s head—hair that was very light brown, or perhaps a cross between auburn and light gray in the HD scan—was covered up by a jetblack patch with very straight, artificial looking edges that appeared to be artwork to me, like opaque black paint placed on top of the natural image of his hair. It was as if a trapezoid (the black patch) with impossibly straight edges had been wrapped around the back of JFK’s head, in exactly the area where the Parkland medical staff had seen the exit wound behind the right ear in the posterior skull. My subjective reaction was that frame 317 was so obviously a composite image of artwork superimposed on top of a real film image that I literally expostulated “Holy xxxx!” when Sydney Wilkinson first brought it to my attention. Furthermore, when compared to the part of Governor Connally’s head that was in shadow in the same frame, the portions of the images of the two men’s heads that were supposedly in shadow were totally dissimilar. The portion of Connally’s head in shadow looked gray, and you could still see details inside the shadow; the black “patch” over JFK’s head was jet-black, with no details visible whatsoever.

And guess what? You can actually see this patch with artificially straight edges on the MPI product sold in 1998, Image of an Assassination. It is best seen in the Close-up Frame view, using the ‘frame-by-frame advance’ feature on your remote. Even though the contrast of the image has been adjusted by MPI and the overall image appears much darker, with brighter and more vivid colors than the exposure neutral scan of Sydney’s, the curved trapezoid with improbably straight edges wrapped around the back of JFK’s head can still be seen! Take a look for yourself at home.

In the surrounding frames on the MPI product, however—frames 313-337—the back of the head is so muddy and dark that the viewer cannot detect whether there is any overt, or blatant evidence of artificiality (i.e., straight edges associated with the black region on the back of the head) or not. The same is not true of the HD scans of the frames beginning with 313 (the ‘head explosion’), and continuing well past frame 337. The back of JFK’s head in all of these HD frames, beginning with 313, looks impossibly dark compared with the remainder of the image. The “black patch” on the HD frames, when viewed in extreme closeup on a high resolution video screen or monitor, appears to ‘hang in space,’ an impossibly dark mask supported by...NOTHING. Words are inadequate to convey how artificial this area of his head looks from frames 313 to 337 in particular, and even beyond that, until Jackie Kennedy pushes her husband’s head down out of view of the camera’s lens as she crawls out on the back of the limousine to retrieve part of his brain from thetrunk lid of the car. Frame 317 is just the most obvious of all of these frames, probably the one frame where the aerial imaging artist forgot to ‘fuzz up’ the edges of the black patch with his airbrush. The HD scan of frame 313 (the ‘head explosion’) also looks particularly bad when viewed in extreme closeup on a high-resolution video monitor: the ‘black patch’ actually comes down over the top of, and covers, the back of JFK’s shirt collar—and the so-called ‘head explosion’ seems to be coming from an area in space that is actually in front of President Kennedy’s head, rather than on his head. In other words, the aerial imaging artist who altered this frame screwed up twice, and in both respects depicted things that cannot be.

One reason I am confident, even at this early stage in this investigation, that I am looking at the result of aerial imaging on an animation stand (such as described by Professor Fielding in his 1965 textbook), and not at a traveling matte, is that upon extreme magnification on a high-resolution screen, I believe I can see the real exit wound in the right rear of JFK’s head bleeding through the black patch in frame 313. This is a subjective impression that most (but not all) people see when I show the extreme close-up of the HD scan of Z-313 to them on the high-resolution screen (1200 x 1920 pixels) on my laptop computer. I believe I am correct because the darker ovoid shape that I see “coming through the black mask” is in exactly the location where the exit wound was described by the Parkland treatment staff, and is also the same size they described—about the size of a baseball (or slightly smaller). For any part of an original image at all to be seen through a patch of black artwork means that we are looking at a composite created by aerial imaging, in which the black paint used by the animator was not completely opaque, and where the light projecting the original film frame up through the condensers onto the animation stand was a bit too bright—so bright that part of the original image could be seen through the non-opaque black paint employed by the visual effects artist on his animation cell. A matte insertion could not, by its very nature, allow any of the original image to “bleed through” the matte, since when a matte is inserted into a film frame that portion of the original image has already been optically excised.

Aerial imaging seems the likely method employed to alter all frames of the head wound for two other reasons, as well. First, the area being covered up (the back of the head) is so small—it would even be small on a 7.5 x 10 inch animation stand in an aerial imaging set-up on an optical printer—that registration problems would surely have occurred if a 35 mm traveling matte had been employed to cover up the real exit defect. (No such registration errors are seen in the HD frames.) Second, aerial imaging artwork is ‘self-matting’ by its very nature, since the animation cell is superimposed over the top of the image being projected through the condensers in the optical printer—which means that the new, composite image can be captured on the first pass by the process camera, resulting in less contrast buildup than would be the case in a traveling matte, which would be two generations farther down the line. This aerial imaging hypothesis is the most likely explanation for the altered frames of the head wounds that will be tested throughout the Los Angeles investigation as it proceeds.

And if the back of the head has been blacked out, it necessarily follows that the so-called massive head wound, seen most vividly in frames 335 and 337, is artwork also. (See Figures 89 and 90.) If one wound has been covered up, a substitute wound must be created to take its place. In her Warren Commission testimony—testimony that was deleted from the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits published in 1964, and only released by the U.S. government circa 1975—Jackie Kennedy said to J. Lee Rankin: “...from the front there was nothing...” when describing the head wound under oath.

The full quotation of this section of her suppressed testimony is provided below: I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. [author’s emphasis]

It should be no surprise to my readers that this testimony was suppressed! At a time when the Warren Commission, using the frames carefully selected by the CIA’s assets at LIFE magazine, was attempting to persuade the American public that JFK had an exit wound in the right-front of his head, our citizenry couldn’t be allowed to read graphic testimony like this that cast doubt upon the official cover story, or upon images from the Zapruder film published by LIFE. Jackie’s testimony, of course, was consistent with that of the Parkland medical staff in Trauma Room One, who overwhelmingly testified that the exit wound they saw was in the right rear of his skull, and consistently mentioned no damage to the right-front of JFK’s head. In later years, as pointed out elsewhere in this book, Dr. Peters, Dr. Crenshaw, Dr. Jones, and Nurse Bell all specifically stated that the right-front of President Kennedy’s head was undamaged when they saw him at Parkland hospital.

 

Edited May 8 by Keven Hofeling

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I want to go back over what happened to the Zapruder film the weekend of the murder in order to evaluate the likelihood, or even the plausibility, of Jeremy's claim that the film would not have been altered because destroying it was a better alternative.  Spoiler alert: we know the planners of the murder had at least two chances that weekend to destroy rather than alter or hide the film, and they rejected that option each time.

 

We shouldn't ignore the setting that weekend.  It was a time of national trauma and uncertainty. Topped off by the murder of Oswald on Sunday, who authorities were  already telling us was the lone assassin.  Back in Philadelphia Salandria was telling his brother in law that if Oswald was murdered it would mean we were watching a government coup.  

 

So what to do about the Zapruder film that the planners knew contradicted their Oswald story? It was already becoming well known. Zapruder had been on TV the day of the murder explaining what he had filmed.  He had watched the film several times to make sure it had captured the murder. Dan Rather, a local Dallas reporter at the time, got access and had described what he saw when he watched the film.

 

Saturday morning Zapruder organized a bid for media organizations that wanted the right to bring the film to the public.  A CBS rep was there but he could not get his people to bid beyond $10,000. Life mag blew them out of the water with a bid of $50,000, and that was just for the limited right to publish some stills from the film in their magazine.  Life also agreed to return the original to Zapruder after a several days in exchange for a copy Zapruder had kept.

 

For years the story had been told that Life then sent the film to its Chicago headquarters to begin work on it. That's not what happened.

 

Instead the film was sent to the NPIC lab used by the intelligence services, for the purpose of making sets of briefing boards that could clearly show the planners the extent to which the film contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with.

 

At that point, when the boards clearly showed the contradictions, the planners had to decide whether to try to eliminate or obscure the incriminating parts, or simply destroy the film.

 

They rejected destruction in favor of trying alteration, with the knowledge that if that failed they could still try to bury the film from public view as long as possible until things blew over.  Destroying the film would eliminate that option, and as we have seen hiding information is one thing the planners were are adept at.  Life was fronting for the planners; they knew Life would do what they wanted.

 

Instead of destroying it, the film was sent to the CIA's secret Hawkeye Works lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester, NY to try alterations.

 

It became apparent, probably rather quickly, that the alterations they could make were not sufficient to eliminate or obscure all of the incriminating evidence.

 

Note, however, that the alterations they ended up making meant that the original film was in fact destroyed. Just not in the sense Jeremy means.  The original no longer existed; it was replaced by the altered film.  A second set of briefing boards was made starting that weekend from the film returned from HW, and Bruginoi's boards, made from the original film, the last vestiges of the original, were later destroyed.

 

Here was a second decision point for the planners, who were no doubt kept abreast of what was happening at HW. They could scrap the alteration idea as a failure and simply destroy the film. When that became public knowledge as it surely would have because the public was curious about the film, which Life's publication a few days later would surely stoke, they could blame the "accident" on another patsy, as Jeremy suggests. That would make two convenient patsies introduced in the first few days after the murder, one of which they had just murdered so he couldn't contradict their story.

 

Once again they rejected the idea to destroy the film altogether.

 

Life went back to Zapruder Sunday afternoon and cancelled the original deal. They gave Zapruder another $100,000 for the full rights to the film, including the right to show it in its entirety. They then buried it from public view, rejecting all requests to show it, for what turned out to be almost 12 years. 

 

When a bootleg copy of the film was shown on TV in 1975, Life's job of hiding it was finished.  They sold the altered film back to Zapruder for $1. That establishes what Life's role was in the whole process.

    

What does all of this mean? Reason, together with the actions taken that weekend by the planners, establish the logical basis for the claim that the Zapruder film was altered. It prevents gatekeepers from arguing the film was not, or could not, have been altered.  It provides a basis to examine all of the specific alterations that have been alleged.

I have heard many skeptics dismiss the rear blowout theory because the Z film shows no such wound. The film is a powerful tool and totally convincing for those who reject the possibility of alteration. If it was destroyed they would not have that powerful tool to use as pushback against the Parkland witnesses.
 If they were covering up an occipital blowout the witnesses testimony from Parkland would be a big problem. You can fake documents and X-rays but controlling a couple dozen witnesses is much harder or impossible. However when it comes to witnesses memory vs actual film images, the film tends trump the witness accounts. Even if you have 20+ witnesses, many people will assume all the witnesses have to be wrong. 
 Covering up a rear blowout would be a minimal alteration that only requires blacking out the occipital which was already in shadow. You would not need to create fake hair in the posterior area. Could that go undetected? I don't know. But if they could be confident about that alteration, the Z film would be beneficial to them and would not have been destroyed.
 Of the ten films taken that day only the Z film would require removal of an occipital blowout. The head is never seen with any clarity or seen at all in the Hughes, Paschall, Bell, Daniels, Towner or Dorman films. The Nix and Bronson films had no view what so ever of the right posterior area of JFK's head because JFK's head was turned about 18 degrees to his left relative to Elm. Muchmore had a somewhat better angle but her view to the right occipital was nearly side on due to the way the head curves around to the side at that location. Additionally his head disappears behind Jean Hill just three frames after the headshot. So if a 4th shot(Rear blowout) happened just 1/4 second after the headshot it would not have been recorded by Muchmore. After JFK passes Jean Hill, Hargis blocks the view except for a frame or two that shows just a sliver of his head.
 The only film that would require alteration is the Z film. Even the Moorman photo was taken less than 1/4 second after the headshot and would most likely not show the 4th shot. 
   On the other hand, the fact they did not release the film to the public may indicate it was not altered. Why would they alter it then hide it away? I can only guess that it may have been their ace in the hole in case they failed to discount and discredit the Parkland accounts. Maybe the longer they held it the more confident they could be that no other film evidence would surface to reveal their alteration. Maybe holding it for years lessened the chance that new technology would expose their film as fake.
 

[Chris Davidson]

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Why would they alter [the Z film] then hide it away? I can only guess that it may have been their ace in the hole in case they failed to discount and discredit the Parkland accounts. Maybe the longer they held it the more confident they could be that no other film evidence would surface to reveal their alteration. Maybe holding it for years lessened the chance that new technology would expose their film as fake.

 

Don't forget, it would look awfully suspicious for Life to lose that film. Whereas, tucking it away in a safe makes good sense. It only gets suspicious after several years and Life hasn't done anything with it. But even that wouldn't be all that suspicious... projects get canned all the time.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/16/2024 at 12:33 PM, Roger Odisio said:

SL:  I think the desired goal was to have it look like Oswald was in cahoots with Russia and Cuba, and was paid a $6500 down payment for his team to kill Kennedy. This would create a pretext for invasion of Cuba, and/or first nuclear strike on Russia if the generals got so lucky to get their way.

RO:  Yes, there was a faction that wanted to use the murder as pretext to go after Cuba, and for some, the SU too. But that was going to be Johnson's decision as the next president. Everyone knew that. Johnson wanted no part of what a war with the SU would do to his administration, which was very likely even if they went after only Cuba. He said no, and gave the war monger faction a war in Vietnam in part as a pacifier.

 

So we agree that there were plotters who wanted the blame to go to Cuba, possibly the Soviet Union too.

Not only did they want that, they invested a lot of time developing a fake story that would create that pretext.

And not only did they develop it, but they continued on with its execution even after the Johnson Administration decided not to take advantage of it. For example, Alvarado's story came out after. I think that David Phillips and Angleton were claiming it was a commie plot for years after the assassination.

 

On 2/16/2024 at 12:33 PM, Roger Odisio said:

SL:  When Oswald wasn't killed, McGeorge Bundy scrapped that plan and decided that only Oswald was involved. This resulted in the ad hoc seat-of-the-pants coverup that produced the Warren Report.

RO:  Bundy made no large decisions on his won.  He was a war hawk who was following orders.  Imagine Johnson as president sitting by and letting Bundy decide about war and peace in his administration.

The idea of having Johnson appoint 7 figureheads to preside over a fake investigation of the murder was surely discussed before the murder. And most likely agreed upon. Leaving Johnson the long time Washington denizen to pick the 7.

Btw, can you see the reasons piling up for why I believe Johnson had to be involved in the original plan?  He was going to be vital to its success.

 

So you are saying that it was Johnson's decision to dismiss the commie plot and go with the lone gunman?

If that's the case, why did Bundy inform Johnson on Air Force One that it wasn't a commie plot and that the lone gunman had been caught?

Also, if it was Johnson's decision to dismiss the commie plot, how could he do that before the (fake) commie plot had even been discovered by the FBI?

In order for you to be right about this, it seems that Johnson would have known before 11/22/63 about both Oswald AND the commie plot. I can't understand why the CIA plotters would spend all that time developing a fake commie plot if they knew Johnson would immediately nix it.

I don't think Johnson was aware of exactly what the CIA's plot was... only that there was a plot.

 

On 2/16/2024 at 12:33 PM, Roger Odisio said:

SL:  Yes, Oswald was the patsy from the start... not as a shooter, but as an assassination team leader. But he was supposed to be eliminated right after Kennedy was killed. Bundy changed the plan when he wasn't killed.

RO:  Oswald was the patsy in part because he could be used in more than one scenario. Once the Cuba/Russia scenario was eliminated, the WC ended up with the loner with no clear motive story. I can't imagine the killers seeing Oswald as an assassination team leader. 

 

Oswald wasn't THE leader, he was among those planning the assassination. He was the one who received the down payment in the Cuban Consulate. So he was more like a gofer. (All of this fake, of course.)

 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

So we agree that there were plotters who wanted the blame to go to Cuba, possibly the Soviet Union too.

Not only did they want that, they invested a lot of time developing a fake story that would create that pretext.

And not only did they develop it, but they continued on with its execution even after the Johnson Administration decided not to take advantage of it. For example, Alvarado's story came out after. I think that David Phillips and Angleton were claiming it was a commie plot for years after the assassination.

So you are saying that it was Johnson's decision to dismiss the commie plot and go with the lone gunman?

If that's the case, why did Bundy inform Johnson on Air Force One that it wasn't a commie plot and that the lone gunman had been caught?

RO:  The message to AF1 was not directed at Johnson but to others on the plane and to the plane coming back from Hawaii. Particularly to members of Kennedy's team.  A big, early hurdle for the killers was to make it clear to the Kennedy people and then others around Washington, that the story of the murder had already been established. No matter what you think you may have seen in Dealey Plaza, or thought about later, don't interfere. Per Salandria, the messenger  (not actually Bundy, but Bundy was running the place) from the WH Situation Room was speaking for the killers.  People got the idea.

Also, if it was Johnson's decision to dismiss the commie plot, how could he do that before the (fake) commie plot had even been discovered by the FBI?

RO:  There were lots of people and groups who wanted Kennedy dead for their own reasons. The murder made Johnson president, which was the main thing he wanted. He was never going to allow the murder to embroil the country in a war with the SU. The extent to which he made that known to others, or how much they listened, before the murder is not clear. Believe or not there are still groups today wanting war with Russia.

In order for you to be right about this, it seems that Johnson would have known before 11/22/63 about both Oswald AND the commie plot. I can't understand why the CIA plotters would spend all that time developing a fake commie plot if they knew Johnson would immediately nix it.

RO: I'm not sure how much Johnson knew or cared about Oswald as the patsy before the murder. The planning for the murder was unquestionably compartmentalized.  But he had to have known there were those who wanted to use the killing to attack Cuba and the SU.  He killed the idea early on in his presidency.  But he couldn't control what other plotters were working on before the murder.  

I don't think Johnson was aware of exactly what the CIA's plot was... only that there was a plot.

RO:  Probably not.  It was compartmentalized.  He didn't have a "need to know" everything.  But the other plotters had to have confidence he would do the crucial things they needed him to do after the murder. 

 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

13 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I have heard many skeptics dismiss the rear blowout theory because the Z film shows no such wound. The film is a powerful tool and totally convincing for those who reject the possibility of alteration. If it was destroyed they would not have that powerful tool to use as pushback against the Parkland witnesses.
 If they were covering up an occipital blowout the witnesses testimony from Parkland would be a big problem. You can fake documents and X-rays but controlling a couple dozen witnesses is much harder or impossible. However when it comes to witnesses memory vs actual film images, the film tends trump the witness accounts. Even if you have 20+ witnesses, many people will assume all the witnesses have to be wrong. 
 Covering up a rear blowout would be a minimal alteration that only requires blacking out the occipital which was already in shadow. You would not need to create fake hair in the posterior area. Could that go undetected? I don't know. But if they could be confident about that alteration, the Z film would be beneficial to them and would not have been destroyed.
 Of the ten films taken that day only the Z film would require removal of an occipital blowout. The head is never seen with any clarity or seen at all in the Hughes, Paschall, Bell, Daniels, Towner or Dorman films. The Nix and Bronson films had no view what so ever of the right posterior area of JFK's head because JFK's head was turned about 18 degrees to his left relative to Elm. Muchmore had a somewhat better angle but her view to the right occipital was nearly side on due to the way the head curves around to the side at that location. Additionally his head disappears behind Jean Hill just three frames after the headshot. So if a 4th shot(Rear blowout) happened just 1/4 second after the headshot it would not have been recorded by Muchmore. After JFK passes Jean Hill, Hargis blocks the view except for a frame or two that shows just a sliver of his head.
 The only film that would require alteration is the Z film. Even the Moorman photo was taken less than 1/4 second after the headshot and would most likely not show the 4th shot. 
   On the other hand, the fact they did not release the film to the public may indicate it was not altered. Why would they alter it then hide it away? I can only guess that it may have been their ace in the hole in case they failed to discount and discredit the Parkland accounts. Maybe the longer they held it the more confident they could be that no other film evidence would surface to reveal their alteration. Maybe holding it for years lessened the chance that new technology would expose their film as fake.
 

The decisions about what to do with the Z film that weekend were made separately but in a logical sequence. First try to alter the film to conceal the damaging information it showed. If that failed, as it did, they could either hide the film for as long as they could get away with (almost 12 years as it turned out), or destroy it.  

 

The film was already known as the essential record of the murder (Chris explains that in fact it was that), and Life magazine was to publish stills from it in a few days.  I don't think they ever seriously considered destroying it.  They were too smart for that. 

 

By altering instead of destroying it, they were left with a film that could masquerade as the original, instead of having to explain what happened to it.  What remained was the boards Brugioni made from the original that weekend.  Brugioni had kept them in a safe for more than a decade. Once authorities started sniffing around the murder again in the mid 70s and Brugioni mentioned he still had his boards, he was ordered to get rid of them.  Which he did.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

14 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I have heard many skeptics dismiss the rear blowout theory because the Z film shows no such wound. The film is a powerful tool and totally convincing for those who reject the possibility of alteration. If it was destroyed they would not have that powerful tool to use as pushback against the Parkland witnesses.
 If they were covering up an occipital blowout the witnesses testimony from Parkland would be a big problem. You can fake documents and X-rays but controlling a couple dozen witnesses is much harder or impossible. However when it comes to witnesses memory vs actual film images, the film tends trump the witness accounts. Even if you have 20+ witnesses, many people will assume all the witnesses have to be wrong. 
 Covering up a rear blowout would be a minimal alteration that only requires blacking out the occipital which was already in shadow. You would not need to create fake hair in the posterior area. Could that go undetected? I don't know. But if they could be confident about that alteration, the Z film would be beneficial to them and would not have been destroyed.
 Of the ten films taken that day only the Z film would require removal of an occipital blowout. The head is never seen with any clarity or seen at all in the Hughes, Paschall, Bell, Daniels, Towner or Dorman films. The Nix and Bronson films had no view what so ever of the right posterior area of JFK's head because JFK's head was turned about 18 degrees to his left relative to Elm. Muchmore had a somewhat better angle but her view to the right occipital was nearly side on due to the way the head curves around to the side at that location. Additionally his head disappears behind Jean Hill just three frames after the headshot. So if a 4th shot(Rear blowout) happened just 1/4 second after the headshot it would not have been recorded by Muchmore. After JFK passes Jean Hill, Hargis blocks the view except for a frame or two that shows just a sliver of his head.
 The only film that would require alteration is the Z film. Even the Moorman photo was taken less than 1/4 second after the headshot and would most likely not show the 4th shot. 
   On the other hand, the fact they did not release the film to the public may indicate it was not altered. Why would they alter it then hide it away? I can only guess that it may have been their ace in the hole in case they failed to discount and discredit the Parkland accounts. Maybe the longer they held it the more confident they could be that no other film evidence would surface to reveal their alteration. Maybe holding it for years lessened the chance that new technology would expose their film as fake.
 

Chris Bristow wrote:

Quote

I have heard many skeptics dismiss the rear blowout theory because the Z film shows no such wound. The film is a powerful tool and totally convincing for those who reject the possibility of alteration. If it was destroyed they would not have that powerful tool to use as pushback against the Parkland witnesses.
 If they were covering up an occipital blowout the witnesses testimony from Parkland would be a big problem. You can fake documents and X-rays but controlling a couple dozen witnesses is much harder or impossible. However when it comes to witnesses memory vs actual film images, the film tends trump the witness accounts. Even if you have 20+ witnesses, many people will assume all the witnesses have to be wrong. 

In all of this back and forth debate about why the Zapruder film forgers did not simply destroy the camera-original Zapruder film the key point is being overlooked.

The forgers DID in fact destroy the camera-original Zapruder film by replacing it with a product sanitized to remove the tell-tale signs of conspiracy (shots from the front and the complicity of the Praetorian Guard), but the plotters overestimated the effectiveness of the film alteration technology of the era when limited by the short period of time available for those alterations to be made. These limitations resulted in an inferior film product that would lead to detection of the fabricated film effects had the film been made openly available for technical scrutiny, so strict controls had to be placed upon analyses of the film from the outset. Such a state of affairs was made possible by what I will here term as "the home court advantage;" that is, the advantages provided by the conspirators wielding control over the cloak and dagger services of the intelligence agencies which by their very nature have the capacity to covertly control the processes of public inquiry from the inside, wherein the citizen critics/researchers are limited in their capacity to conduct such public inquiry by the rules of the process which are controlled and manipulated by the intelligence operatives.

We see this war between the intelligence operatives who enjoy the "home court advantage" and citizen researchers taking place to this very day as it concerns the extant Zapruder film in the saga of the Sixth Floor Museum utilizing its ill-gotten copyrights over the Zapruder film to impede the research efforts of citizen researchers Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead, and the impressive cadre of Hollywood film professionals they have assembled to perform content analysis of the film. In a truly free, open and democratic society, the Sixth Floor Museum would encourage and promote citizen and professional inquiry into the authenticity and provenance of the extant Zapruder film, but instead the institution threatens litigation, and behind the scenes, strange events occur, such as those indicated by the reports of Sydney Wilkinson and Dr. David Mantik about changes taking place in the Zapruder film materials, such as the MPI transparencies which in 2009 displayed "striking" signs of the black trapezoid shaped back-of-the-head patch, and then in 2010 did not, while other materials have outright disappeared, such as the 5x7 "original" Zapruder film transparencies which the Sixth Floor Museum originally acknowledged receiving from its Deed of Gift from the Zapruder family, but more recently claims it has never possessed.

The whole matter of the government making the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head disappear from the findings of all government bodies of inquiry is but an earlier more prominent example of the deployment of the "home court advantage." Over fifty witnesses reported this large rear head defect, the vast majority of them being medical and law enforcement professionals, yet the control over the autopsy and official government investigations have had the effect of "disappearing" the President's fatal wound from the public narrative, in some cases by employing demonstrable fraud, such as in the case of the House Select Committee on Assassinations ("HSCA") concealing the testimony of the Bethesda autopsy witnesses from the public by classifying if "top secret" for fifty years (as we discovered when the Assassination Records Review Board declassified said testimony in the 1990's), and also concealing that crucial evidence from its own Forensic Pathology Panel, which was thereby forced to base its conclusions about the President's head wounds on autopsy photographs depicting the back of the President's head to be intact (autopsy photographs that have been proven by Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing at the National Archives to be fraudulent). The absence of the same back-of-the-head defect from the Zapruder film is likewise obviously fraudulent, and provably fraudulent, but for the employment of "the home court advantage" by the government's intelligence services.

Photographic fraud has a history as long as photography itself, and the notion that the government employed every conceivable type of fraud save for autopsy and photographic fraud is profoundly short-sighted and nieve. If anything, autopsy fraud and photographic fraud is employed in a prioritized fashion for reason of the exact prejudices that Chris Bristow describes: "[W]hen it comes to witnesses memory vs actual film images, the film tends trump the witness accounts." Those arguing otherwise would appear to be suffering from a misplaced belief that the intelligence services of their government are not only incompetent, but stupid. Examples of the government using manipulated science, intelligence and photographic fakery are legion, and it is very difficult to take those who attempt to argue otherwise seriously, especially in this day and age, and in the context of the Kennedy assassination which has been so rife with fraud since day one.

 

More specifically, just as with the back-of-the-head wound in the context of the proceedings at Parkland Hospital and the Bethesda autopsy, there is also a vast body of testimonial evidence from the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who reported seeing copious amounts of blood, brain and skull being ejected out of the back of President Kennedy's head.

And yet, no blood or pieces of skull and brain being "blasted out" of the back of JFK's head can be seen in the extant Zapruder film starting at Z-313 as there should be (See slow motion clip of Zapruder film headshot sequence below). Visible in the extant "original" Zapruder film is only a fine red mist suspended in the air for 1/18 of one second (frame Z-313 only), while all of the witnesses in real time on the ground in Dealey Plaza described an entirely different debris trail consisting of voluminous blood, brain and skull that was blown out of the back of JFK's head (Charles Brehm: "IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK"), not the front, as you can see from the witness accounts directly below.
--------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BLOOD AND BRAINS EXITING THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD:

Clint Hill, Samuel Kinney, Bobby Hargis, Bill Newman, Marilyn Willis, Harry Holmes, Charles Brehm, Abraham Zapruder, Erwin Schwartz and Dino Brugioni.
 __________
"...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..."

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir").
__________
"...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..."

Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara).
__________
"...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...."

Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony).
__________
"...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..."

Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13
__________
"...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...."

Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ).
__________
"...THERE WAS JUST A CONE OF BLOOD AND CORRUPTION THAT WENT RIGHT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD AND NECK. I THOUGHT IT WAS RED PAPER ON A FIRECRACKER. IT LOOKED LIKE A FIRECRACKER LIT UP WHICH LOOKS LIKE LITTLE BITS OF RED PAPER AS IT GOES UP. BUT IN REALITY IT WAS HIS SKULL AND BRAINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WENT PERHAPS AS MUCH AS SIX OR EIGHT FEET. JUST LIKE THAT!..."

Dealey Plaza witness and Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. Murder from Within (1974), Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, p. 213. 
__________
"...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET.

Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head?

Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING.

Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly?

Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...."

Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs
__________
"...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...."

Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm
__________
"...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...."

Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman.
__________
"...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..."

Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329.

What do we see at the back of President Kennedy's head instead of the biological debris described by so many Dealey Plaza witnesses? The black patch over the occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of his head. Where is the blood, brain and skull that the witnesses reported? Zapruder film anti-alteration apologists most frequently argue that Abraham Zapruder's 8mm camera lacked the capacity to capture the details of blood, brain and skull; that the wound is obscured by shadow; or that there was no back-of-the-head wound.

As for the notion that Zapruder's camera was incapable of capturing the details of blood, brain and skull, the camera captured the color and detail of Jackie's red roses which appear in fewer frames than the back of the President's head, and note that we see the entire dimensions of the roses, not just part of them with the remainder mysteriously blotted out in D-max black like the back-of the-head.

As for whether we cannot see the blood, brain and skull due to the wound being obscured by shadow, there is no need for us to rely upon self-proclaimed amateur armchair film experts. We can instead rely upon the expert analysis of Hollywood film professionals Paul Rutan, Jr., and Garrett Smith who list their qualifications and provide their expert analysis of what we are seeing at the back of President Kennedy's head in the fames that follow Z-313:

Smith: .…Now, as to my credibility, thirty-seven years in the movie business, I’m not sure how much lower you can go than that; and [I] just got done with nearly twenty-five years at Paramount, where I basically ran their mastering for most of those years and spent the last few years investigating new digital production technology.

Rutan: [I’ve] been doing this since 1968, I was delivering film in New York City; and then full time from ’74 I got hired to work for my Dad, and I worked for him for 12 years — started out as janitor, and then shipping, and then film cleaning, and then film repair, and then optical lineup, and then optical printing. So, ever since then I’ve worked for a couple of companies, set up a department at COMPAC video, and I had my own company for 14 years doing restoration.

Whitehead: Do you see any signs of alteration?

Rutan: Yes.

Whitehead: Where do you see them?

Rutan: Well [speaking while pointing at frame 313 on a large HD monitor], in the — this explosion right here doesn’t look, it’s, see [pointing] — it’s got defects on it — but it just doesn’t look real, it doesn’t look like blood, it just doesn’t look real….

Rutan: I think you’re looking at a patch, at a photographic patch that they put on the back of his [JFK’s] head. It’s crude, but if you run the film you’ll see that it moves — differently than his head does, as well. So, it’s an optical, some sort of an optical [effect] that they put on there, to not show the back of his head.

Whitehead: In your opinion, what do you think would have been the most likely way this would have been accomplished?

Rutan: With an optical printer, with an aerial optical printer….

Rutan: Well, the only thing I can see really is how predominant the black patch is in this particular frame [pointing]. I mean, it’s clear to me that that is not the back of his head, that that is some kind of a [sic] optical effect, that has been laid on the back of his head by an optical house. And this [pointing at the large pink “blob” on the right side of JFK’s head] is also an optical effect. But the back of his head is what always — what I’m always drawn to, because you — it’s almost like he’s wearing a toupee, because there’s the top of his head [pointing at JFK’s auburn hair on the very top of his head] and that’s basically the color it should be, and then it’s black, it’s just solid black.

Smith: You know, the density doesn’t match — the shoulders don’t match that [meaning that the shadow on the back of JFK’s shoulders does not match the black patch on the back of his head] and [the black patch] doesn’t match the top of his head [pointing to JFK’s auburn colored hair on top]….

Smith: It just seems really obvious that the frames where they’ve matted out the back of the head, and added in the pink splash, the pink water-balloon — whatever it is that’s supposed to be the blood — it’s just not even believable … maybe fifty years ago that might have passed muster, but for anybody — I mean — my impression is if I showed it to a 12-year old kid, they would say it was a cartoon…."

https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/

And as to the question of whether there is a back-of-the-head wound at all, to be perfectly honest, I don't take individuals who make such an argument seriously, especially if they have enough familiarity with the evidence to know better. Sandy Larsen's mathematical calculations showing essentially that it is impossible that the 50+ back-of-the-head wound witnesses are mistaken are perfectly on point.

Chris Bristow wrote:

Quote

On the other hand, the fact they did not release the film to the public may indicate it was not altered. Why would they alter it then hide it away? I can only guess that it may have been their ace in the hole in case they failed to discount and discredit the Parkland accounts. Maybe the longer they held it the more confident they could be that no other film evidence would surface to reveal their alteration. Maybe holding it for years lessened the chance that new technology would expose their film as fake.

In my opinion, the logic Doug Horne employed in support of his conclusion that CIA/LIFE suppressed the altered Zapruder film from public consumption due to the shortage of time and limitations in technology resulting in a flawed product is impeccable. If the alterations had been undetectable, I think the extant "original" Zapruder film would have been projected from the rooftops throughout the land. Instead, the government sought to suppress it to avoid what Sydney Wilkinson, Thom Whithead and the Hollywood Seven are on the verge of accomplishing today: Exposing the extant Zapruder film as the fraud that it is to all the world...

Doug Horne wrote:

"...(1) those altering the Zapruder film at “Hawkeyeworks” on Sunday, November 24, 1963 were extremely pressed for time, and could only do “so much” in the twelve-to-fourteen hour period available to them; (2) the technology available with which to alter films in 1963 (both the traveling matte, and aerial imaging) had limitations—there was no digital CGI technology at that time—and therefore, I believe the forgers were limited to basic capabilities like blacking out the exit wound in the right-rear of JFK’s head; painting  a false exit wound on JFK’s head on the top and right side of his skull (both of these seem to have been accomplished through “aerial imaging”—that is, animation cells overlaid “in space” on top of the projected images of the frames being altered, using a customized optical printer with an animation stand, and a process camera to re-photograph each self-matting, altered frame); and removing exit debris frames, and even the car stop, through step-printing.

In my view, the alterations that were performed were aimed at quickly removing the most egregious evidence of shots from the front (namely, the exit debris leaving the skull toward the left rear, and the gaping exit wound which the Parkland Hospital treatment staff tells us was present in the right-rear of JFK’s head).  I believe that in their minds, the alterationists of 1963 were racing against the clock—they did not know what kind of investigation, either nationally or in Texas, would transpire, and they were trying to sanitize the film record as quickly as possible before some investigative body demanded to “see the film evidence.”  There was not yet a Warren Commission the weekend following the assassination, and those who planned and executed the lethal crossfire in Dealey Plaza were intent upon removing as much of the evidence of it as possible, as quickly as possible.  As I see it, they did not have time for perfection, or the technical ability to ensure perfection, in their “sanitization” of the Zapruder film.  They did an imperfect job, the best they could in about 12-14 hours, which was all the time they had on Sunday, November 24, 1963, at “Hawkeyeworks.”  Besides, there was no technology available in 1963 that could convincingly remove the “head-snap” from the Zapruder film; you could not animate JFK’s entire body without it being readily detectable as a forgery, so the “head-snap” stayed in the film.  (The “head snap” may even be an inadvertent result—an artifact of apparently rapid motion—caused by the optical removal of several “exit debris” frames from the film.  When projected at normal speed at playback, any scene in a motion picture will appear to speed up if frames have been removed.  Those altering the film may have believed it was imperative to remove the exit debris travelling through the air to the rear of President Kennedy, even if that did induce apparent “motion” in his body which made it appear as though he might have been shot from the front.  The forgers may have had no choice, in this instance, but to live with the lesser of two evils.  Large amounts of exit debris traveling toward the rear would have been unmistakable proof within the film of a fatal shot from the front; whereas a “head snap” is something whose causes could be debated endlessly, without any final resolution.)

Those who altered the Zapruder film knew that the wound alteration images in frames 317, 321, 323, 335, and 337, for example, were “good enough” to show investigators the film on a flimsy movie screen coated with diamond dust, but they also knew the alterations were not good enough to withstand close scrutiny.  That is why I believe C.D. Jackson—the CIA’s asset at LIFE and its best friend in the national print media—instructed Richard Stolley to again approach Abraham Zapruder on Sunday night, and to offer a much higher sale price for Zapruder’s movie, in exchange for LIFE’s total ownership of the film, and all rights to the film.  By Sunday night, the name of the game at LIFE was suppression, not profit-making.  By Sunday night, November 24^th, C. D. Jackson was wearing his CIA hat, not his Time, Inc. businessman’s hat.  After striking the new deal with Time, Inc. on Monday, Zapruder received an immediate $25,000.00, and the remainder of his payments ($25,000.00 per year, each January, through January of 1968), were effectively structured as “hush money” payments.  His incentive to keep his mouth shut about the film’s alteration would clearly be his desire to keep getting paid $25,000.00 each January, for the next five years.

The alterationists in 1963 also had a “disposal” problem, for they had three genuine “first day copies” of the Zapruder film floating around which threatened to proliferate quickly, unless they could get them out of circulation immediately, replaced with new “first generation copies” stuck from the new “Hawkeyeworks” master delivered to NPIC on Sunday night.

For them, speed was of the essence, not perfection.  I believe that once the new “master” was completed at “Hawkeyeworks” early Sunday evening, three new first generation copies were struck from it, as well as at least one “dirty dupe” for the LIFE editorial crew standing by in Chicago.  Only after these products were exposed at Rochester, early Sunday evening, was the “new Zapruder film” (masquerading as an unslit, 16 mm wide camera-original “double 8” film) couriered down to NPIC by “Bill Smith,” who took his cock-and-bull story along with him, to his everlasting discredit.

Of course, the cock-and-bull story worked, since Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter knew nothing about the event with the true camera-original film at NPIC the previous night.  McMahon and Hunter had no reason, on Sunday night, 11/24/63, to disbelieve “Bill Smith” when he told them that he had brought “the camera-original film” with him, after it had been “developed” at Rochester.  After all, the product handed to them looked like a camera-original “double 8” film: it was a 16 mm wide unslit film, with sprocket holes on both sides, and exhibited opposing image strips, upside down in relation to each other, and going in reverse directions.

I am quite sure that by Tuesday, November 26^th, all of the original “first day copies” had been swapped out with the three replacements made at “Hawkeyeworks” Sunday night from the new “original.”

NPIC finished up with the new “original” Zapruder film by some time Monday morning, November 25^th, or perhaps by mid-day Monday at the latest.  McMahon went home after the enlargements (the 5 x 7 prints) were run off, but the graphics people at NPIC still had to finish assembling the three sets of four panel briefing boards.

And the rest is history.  Now, through the magic of high resolution digital scans—technology undreamed of in 1963, in an analog world—the forgery and fraud of November, 1963 is being exposed, slowly but surely.  Alterations that were “good enough” to hold up on a flimsy, portable 8 mm movie screen back in 1963, look quite bad—very crude—today, under the magnifying glass of today’s digital technology...."

"The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" by Douglas P. Horne   https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

 

Edited February 18 by Keven Hofeling