The Zapruder Film Enigma: From Natural Shadows to Unnatural Shapes (The Black Patch Covering the Occipital-Parietal Wound)

[Keven Hofeling]

The Zapruder Film Enigma: From Natural Shadows to Unnatural Shapes

In this high-definition clip of the Zapruder film headshot sequence it is possible to see how prior to the headshot at frame 313 the shadow on the back of JFK's head appears to be a legitimate natural shadow with fading edges. Then at the time of the headshot at frame 313 and the frames thereafter the shadow morphs into a D-max black blob (covering the occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head) which from frame to frame takes various geometric shapes defined by unnaturally sharp edges.

 

Also note that you can see the First Lady put her white-gloved hand on the occipital parietal wound immediately before she begins to get up to go out onto the trunk to retrieve a piece of skull.

 

Below I have posted a set of stills of this headshot segment to allow better inspection of the morphing geometric shapes of the D-max black blob with sharp edges.

 

Set of stills of same Zapruder film headshot sequence to allow better inspection of the morphing geometric shapes of the D-max black blob with sharp edges:

_______________

 

NOTE TO THOSE WHO ARE ADVERSE TO LONG POSTS SUBSTANTIATED BY EVIDENCE AND EXHIBITS: THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD PLACE FOR YOU TO STOP READING...

 

_______________

“Zapruder film 2K and 6K scans courtesy of Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead, for private research purposes only.”

https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/

"...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...."

 

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

_______________

 

Doug Horne on Zapruder fame 317: Excerpt from Doug Horne's Inside the Assassination Records Review Borad, Chapter 14, Vol. IV, Addendum: The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood

"...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 the trunk 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. 

                                                                                                                                                ZAPRUDER FRAMES 335 (ABOVE) AND 337 (BELOW)

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]

Remember, the late Dr. Roderick Ryan of Kodak (who was based in Hollywood) expressed the opinion that the head wounds seen in the Zapruder film are not a traveling matte, but a painting.

Corroborating evidence that the large ‘wound’ seen in frames 335 and 337 is artwork can be found in the digital scans commissioned by Sydney Wilkinson of frames 456 and 466. Jackie Kennedy apparently propped her husband upright in the corner of the back seat for about 2 seconds (to briefly examine him) right after she returned to the back seat of the limousine. This is clearly apparent in the HD scans of the Zapruder film, but is something that I do not believe has ever been noticed by researchers before because the bootleg analog copies of the film suffer from contrast buildup and are too dark and indistinct in these frames to pick out this kind of detail. Sydney Wilkinson made this discovery, and in my view it turned out to be a significant one. In greatly magnified close-ups of frames 456 and 466, JFK can not only be seen propped up briefly in a ‘sitting’ position in the right rear of the back seat bench, but in these two frames—those in which his image is in the best focus— there is no longer any large wound visible on the right side of his head—and while there is a black spot on the right rear quadrant of his head, we do not see the entire bottom portion of the back of his head blacked out as we did immediately after frame 313! I believe that in these two frames—in frames 456 and 466—we are looking at unaltered frames of JFK’s head. The image was too small, even on the aerial imaging animation stand, for anyone to bother. The type of detail we can see now in these two frames in high resolution after a digital scan was of no concern—was not even deemed possible—back in 1963 when the Zapruder film was only expected to be viewed as a motion picture on a shaky, wobbly, silvered movie screen by a few government investigators.

                                                                                                                  ZAPRUDER FRAME 456 (CROPPED)

                                                                                                                                                 ZAPRUDER FRAME 466 (CROPPED)

A study of the colors present in the black spot on the back of JFK’s head in these two frames should be conducted to see if any of the pixels reveal the color red inside this ‘black spot’ in frames 456 and 466. If the color of blood is detected in this area, then the descriptions of the exit wound in the posterior skull made by the Parkland medical staff will have been vindicated, once and for all.

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.

The congruent denials of any frontal exit wound by both the President’s widow, and by key members of the medical staff who treated him at Parkland hospital, are the surest indications that the gross damage depicted in frames 335 and 337 (as well as in earlier frames between 313 and 335) is nothing but artwork, most likely painted onto animation cells on an aerial imaging animation stand in a modified optical printer, at the same time that the back of the head was blacked out in each frame...."

AND ALSO NOTE DR. DAVID MANTIK'S COMMENT IN HIS MOST RECENT BOOK ABOUT THE VISIBILITY OF THE OCCIPITAL PARIETAL WOUND IN ZAPRUDER FRAME 374:

_______________

 

In Zapruder frame 312 we see what by all appearances is a perfectly natural shadow, but just 5/18 of one second later at Z-317, the natural looking shadow has morphed into a deep black hexagon shaped black blotch with sharp edges -- which constitutes a truly striking transformation. Zapruder film authenticity apologists insist that the black patch is an anomaly confined only to copies of the extant "original" Zapruder film which resulted either from deliberate fraud, or from degradation caused by multiple generations of copying; but the same black patch has been positively identified as being present in the 5x7 transparencies struck directly from the extant "original" Zapruder film, and when Dr. David Mantik conducted said comparison at the Sixth Floor Museum on November 20, 2009, he reported that the black patch was "PARTICULARLY STUNNING" in those:

 

 

Doug Horne wrote:

"...In my book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" (in Chapter 14), I discussed in some detail how the Hollywood research group has been using high resolution digital scans of a 35 mm dupe negative of the extant film in the National Archives to study the apparent alteration of the image content of the Zapruder film. I also discussed the provenance of any such film duplicates obtained from NARA, and explained that the 35 mm dupe negative being studied is a fifth generation copy (if one counts the extant film as "zero").

As I pointed out in Chapter 14, the 4" by 5" large format Ektrachrome color positive transparencies of each frame of the extant film in the Archives---commissioned by the Zapruder family and created by a subcontractor working for MPI video in 1997---could be used to verify that the image content in the 35 mm dupe negative has NOT been altered in any way by those studying the film in Hollywood.

This has already been done. On November 20, 2009, Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., examined the MPI color positive transparencies that are now owned by the Sixth Floor Museum. During a detailed examination which lasted for some time, Dr. Mantik (who had already seen the research results of the Hollywood group) verified to his own satisfaction that the anomalies discussed in my book regarding frames 220, 313, and 317 (as well as in frames 321 and 323, for example) were also present on the color positive transparencies. In fact, he reported to me that the same anomalies were particularly stunning when viewed on the color positive transparencies, which are a FIRST GENERATION product. Gary Mack, and the Museum's Director of Collections and Intellectual Property (Megan Bryant), were both present during his examination. Dr. Mantik was also accompanied by a member of the Hollywood research group.**

I report this to emphasize that the examination verified, by use of a "control" (the first generation color positive transparencies), that the anomalies being studied in the 35 mm dupe negative are also present in another film product created independently from the extant film in the Archives. (In fact, I was present in 1997 when MPI's subcontractor photographed the extant film using the large format Ektachrome transparencies.) The validity and accuracy of the 35 mm dupe negative has thus been verified. No one can now claim that the digital scans of the 35 mm dupe negative being studied by film professionals in Hollywood have been tampered with or altered by those studying them; Mantik's examination verified that the same anomalies present on the high resolution scans of the 35 mm dupe negative are indeed present on the MPI transparencies. Anyone who wishes to make the same comparisons (with the images of frames 220 and 317 in my book) can request access to the MPI transparencies through the Museum's Director of Collections and Intellectual Property, using the Museum's website. This is the procedure Dr. Mantik followed...."

'STUDYING ZAPRUDER FILM ANOMALIES: CLARIFYING THE RECORD' By Douglas P. Horne, former Chief Military Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board and author of 'Inside the Assassination Records Review Board'

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/3251.html

** BUT SEE FOLLOWING POST REGARDING SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS AT THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM:    https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/?do=findComment&comment=528713

_______________

 

Film experts have pointed out the photographic forgery involved with the black patch which obstructs the occipital-parietal wound in the Zapruder film. Because Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead (the makers of a soon to be released documentary on Zapruder film fraud entitled "Alteration") are professionals working within the film industry, they have been able to enlist true Hollywood experts in cinematography and post production who have performed content analysis of the Zapruder film. Among them are genuine cinematography professionals such as Ned Price (https://studentfilmreviews.org/?p=17707 ), Paul Rutan, Jr. (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0751876/ ) and Leo Zahn (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0951991/ ). Look them up, they are the real deal.

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

FILM INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS COMMENTING ABOUT Z-317

------------------------------------------------
"...This extreme close-up from the HD scan of Zapruder frame 317 is what prompted one noted Hollywood expert in post production -- Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio -- to say: "Oh that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe it's such a bad fake." His film industry colleague, Paul Rutan, Jr., proclaimed we are looking at artwork in this frame (i.e., aerial imaging) -- not at "opticals" (i.e., traveling matte)...."
 

Horne's "Inside the ARRB," Vol. 4, p. 1361.

_______________

 

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…."

 

Edited March 15 by Keven Hofeling

[Charles Blackmon]

The Zapruder film is not to be trusted.

[Sandy Larsen]

Thanks for posting this important information, Keven. Before you began posting here, I was completely unaware of the logarithmically-scanned Zapruder frames that reveal so well the blacked out area on the back of the head.

Forum member @Andrej Stancak did do an analysis on certain frames (317?) that showed that the BOH area was unnaturally dark. But I don't know if his analysis was received well by people who aren't technically inclined. Even before that, I pointed out that the "shadow" on the back of Kennedy's head was darker than the shadow on the back of Jackie's head, which makes no sense because -- as one can see in many photos that day -- her hair was noticeably darker than his.

 

[David Andrews]

In this fine and valuable post, terms used are a bit fluid among interviewees and the author.  The author makes distinction between use of an optical effect (an inserted traveling matte, not used) and aerial imaging (painting in the forward head wound, skull "flap," and skull explosion).  Rutan, however, cites the forward wound as an "optical" effect.

The forward skull "flap" is rather realistic looking in Zapruder.  Is it possible that the forward wound is actually a filmed image of the rear wound transposed to the right front, through whatever means?  Combination of traveling matte for the "flap" with aerial imaging used to create the skull explosion?

Appearance of a manufactured right front "flap" in the autopsy photos would require taking the time to review the doctored Z-film and replicate the altered frames.

Alternately, what's up with all the black over the parietal area in the "stare of death" photo?  Check full size at link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopsy_of_John_F._Kennedy

The frontal wound images and records need some further examination.

Good one, Keven.

Edited March 16 by David Andrews

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

 

Both Dr. Ronald Jones and Dr. Lito Porto are still alive, but they have still never clarified anything about what Jones told the ARRB, about a small frontal wound.

Edited March 16 by Micah Mileto

[Keven Hofeling]

14 hours ago, David Andrews said:

In this fine and valuable post, terms used are a bit fluid among interviewees and the author.  The author makes distinction between use of an optical effect (an inserted traveling matte, not used) and aerial imaging (painting in the forward head wound, skull "flap," and skull explosion).  Rutan, however, cites the forward wound as an "optical" effect.

The forward skull "flap" is rather realistic looking in Zapruder.  Is it possible that the forward wound is actually a filmed image of the rear wound transposed to the right front, through whatever means?  Combination of traveling matte for the "flap" with aerial imaging used to create the skull explosion?

Appearance of a manufactured right front "flap" in the autopsy photos would require taking the time to review the doctored Z-film and replicate the altered frames.

Alternately, what's up with all the black over the parietal area in the "stare of death" photo?  Check full size at link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopsy_of_John_F._Kennedy

The frontal wound images and records need some further examination.

Good one, Keven.

Quote

The forward skull "flap" is rather realistic looking in Zapruder.  Is it possible that the forward wound is actually a filmed image of the rear wound transposed to the right front, through whatever means?  Combination of traveling matte for the "flap" with aerial imaging used to create the skull explosion?

"A filmed image of the rear wound transposed to the right front" is an interesting idea, but to my knowledge there were no reports of such a "blob" (Harrison Livingston's term for the fleshy appearing mass that appears in the front of JFK's head during the Zapruder headshot sequence) existing at the back of JFK's head. Are you aware of any?

 

Quote

 

Alternately, what's up with all the black over the parietal area in the "stare of death" photo?  Check full size at link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopsy_of_John_F._Kennedy

 

According to Pat Speer, the dark black areas above the right eye on the forehead appear that way because blood red appears as black in black and white photos, which we cannot resolve definitively because there are no bootleg color versions of the stare of death photo.

However, looking at the same area in different color shot to me appears to put Speer's theory in question, as the structures in that area do not seem bloody enough to come out so black for that reason:

 

That area of JFK's head is highly controversial because of the many accounts that there was a bullet entry wound at the hairline in JFK's forehead, as well as Bethesda autopsy technician Ed Reed's testimony that pathologist Humes made an incision there (perhaps to conceal the bullet wound?).

As the result of Parkland Hospital Doctor Paul Peter's analysis (on the 1988 PBS Nova program "Who Shot President Kennedy) we know that it is identifiable as "an incision."

 

And many believe that a bullet entry wound remains visible in the bootleg stare of death autopsy photograph:

 

In my opinion, the most definitive information we have about the true nature of the "right temple" wound is the HSCA testimony of mortician Tom Robinson and the sketch of same that Robinson made for the ARRB:

THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON INTERVIEW - ARRB MD 63 - Robinson-Purdy HSCA Interviews (1/12/77) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327⁠
⁠
"...PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may have been artificially caused, that is, caused by something other than the autopsy?
⁠
ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temple in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of the bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.
⁠
PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.
⁠
ROBINSON: Yes.
⁠
PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?
⁠
ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.
⁠
PURDY: On his right side?
⁠
ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes...
⁠
PAGE 3
⁠
PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line?
⁠
ROBINSON: Yes.
⁠
PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the hair?
⁠
ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.
⁠
PURDY: Approximately what size?
⁠
ROBINSON: Very small, a quarter of an inch.
⁠
PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?
⁠
ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it.
⁠
PURDY: Were you the one that was responsible for closing these wounds in the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: Well, we all worked on it. Once the body was embalmed arterially and they brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill the area (area in the back of the head) I remember treating the . . . organs, like I said, we all tried to help one another.
⁠
PURDY: O.K., you had to close the wound in the back of the head using the rubber, what other work had to be done on the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: It had to be all dried out, packed and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over it as much as possible and stitched into that piece of rubber. They were afraid again of leaks, once the body is moved or shaken in the casket and carried up the Capitol steps and opened again, we had to be very careful, there would have been blood on the pillow.
⁠
PURDY: Was there any other work that you had to do on the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: I did the make up, cosmetic.
⁠
PURDY: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in the back?
⁠
ROBINSON: THAT'S ALL (emphasis not in original).
⁠
PAGE 4
⁠
PURDY: Did you have to shave the head so you could tell if there were other wounds?
⁠
ROBINSON: No. In fact, we wanted the hair there to hide as much as possible. Putting the head into the pillow of the head of the casket would have hidden everything.
⁠
PURDY: Do you think it was possible that there was some other wound under the hair? Did you look for other wounds?
⁠
ROBINSON: Oh yes, we would have found that.
⁠
PURDY: So you are satisfied in your professional experience that there were no other significant wound of the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: I stayed on the left side of the body throughout the whole thing.
⁠
PURDY: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area?
⁠
ROBINSON: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time.
⁠
PURDY: What did you feel caused that wound?
⁠
ROBINSON: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel...." 

 

Bethesda autopsy technician James Jenkins also attests to the existence of the right temple wound as we see with his 2018 markings of the head wounds on a skull model. And Bethesda X-ray technician Jerrol Custer also attested to same in his ARRB deposition.

 

Edited March 17 by Keven Hofeling

[David Andrews]

Keven, in your "stare of death" detail posted above, with yellow arrow, notice there is almost a straight line of black on the left border of the front wound.  Looks very un-hairlike.  If you look at a full, larger version of the photo, the black covers the parietal area and seems to proceed upward into JFK's crown hair.  That's what I meant by "What's all that black?"

Edited March 17 by David Andrews

[Keven Hofeling]

14 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Keven, in your "stare of death" detail posted above, with yellow arrow, notice there is almost a straight line of black on the left border of the front wound.  Looks very un-hairlike.  If you look at a full, larger version of the photo, the black covers the parietal area and seems to proceed upward into JFK's crown hair.  That's what I meant by "What's all that black?"

Yes, I agree with you that this doesn't look right:

And it is also inconsistent with the other bootleg autopsy photographs:

 

For example: