Doug Horne zooms in on the Zapruder film

This just in from Doug Horne:

As seen in ‘Parkland,” Abraham Zapruder filmed JFK’s assassination.

First, I want to thank Jeff for posting this interview (without yet watching it) in spite of the fact that he has always been skeptical about the Zapruder film’s supposed alteration (which I believe really did happen, for a host of reasons). This speaks well to his attitude about evidence; i.e., his willingness to consider new evidence and to follow wherever it may lead, and to permit and even encourage open debate, rather than suppressing uncomfortable or opposing opinions expressed by others. Thanks, Jeff, for supporting the scientific method.

Second,  some of the comments in this thread following the video reveal that others are simply not as familiar with this material as I am, or that they may not have fully paid attention during the interview. I hope the points I make below are useful to anyone who watches the video:

(1) This video, as useful as it is, is not intended to be the “final word” on the 2 NPIC events. It complements a 19,000 word footnoted research paper, or essay, that I posted on the Lew Rockwell site back in 2012, which I encourage everyone who is interested in this video to read, in its entirety. Subjects are covered in more detail in the essay than was possible in this interview. In particular, you will learn much more about the “other” NPIC event with the Z film, event # 2, from the essay. Here is the link:

(2) The 8 mm projector: Bill Banfield procured the 8 mm home movie projector late Saturday night at the Fuller d’Albert photo shop in downtown D.C. after asking the owner to open up the shop for important govt. business that night. The NPIC, according to Dino, already had a good business relationship with that store. I do not know whether Bill Banfield (the Head of the Graphics Dept.) paid for the projector with his own money and got reimbursed, or whether he gave a verbal IOU to the shop owner and then cut a govt. purchase document after the fact. The bottom line is that one way or another, the NPIC paid for the projector. The NPIC was a joint-service national intelligence asset, administered by the CIA.

As seen in “JFK,” Marily Sitzman stood behind Abraham Zapruder on Nov. 22, 1963

(3) One comment incorrectly stated that the 8 mm projector was used again the next night at event # 2 to view the Z film again. This is not correct, and in fact would have been impossible. Only the Z film delivered Saturday night, 11/23, for event # 1, was a “slit” 8 mm film. The Z film delivered the next night, on 11/24 (what I call event # 2), was an UNSLIT double-8 film which was 16 mm wide. It mimicked an out-of-camera, as-yet-unslit camera original double 8 home movie, and as far as Homer McMahon was concerned, WAS an “out of camera” original.

What the video does not cover (but which my long essay does cover) is that NPIC had installed, on-site, both 16 mm and 35 mm film projectors. The source of this information was Homer McMahon, the Head of the Color Lab, who presided over NPIC event # 2, starting late on 11/24. (I interviewed him 3 times in 1997, and one of the interviews was recorded on audiotape and is available from the Archives.)

(4) Zapruder did not have “four copies” on 11/22. He had an out-of-camera ORIGINAL, and three “first-day copies” exposed on a contact printer at the Jamieson Lab, and then developed at the Kodak Lab after Zapruder returned there with the 3 undeveloped contact prints. Zapruder’s out-of-camera original was flown to Chicago by LIFE on Saturday afternoon (11/23), and Zapruder kept one of the first day copies all weekend (and showed it to Dan Rather on Monday, 11/25 according to Richard Trask). The other two first day copies were loaned by Zapruder to the Secret Service in Dallas on Friday night. (I misspoke in the interview and said this happened Saturday. It really happened Friday night.)

One was flown to Secret Service HQ late Friday night and arrived early Saturday morning, before dawn, according to David Wrone. The second “first day copy” loaned by Zapruder to the S.S. on Friday night was loaned to the local FBI office Saturday morning. They (the FBI) flew it to Baltimore Saturday night (11/23) and it was being viewed by Cartha DeLoach and others at FBI HQ early Sunday morning just after midnight (11/24). Just as Dan Rather observed on Monday, Cartha DeLoach wrote in his memoirs that JFK’s head went sharply FORWARD when he watched the film. (These two corroborating observations are strong indicators that the extant film in the Archives today is an alteration.) The loaned first-day copy at FBI HQ was returned to Dallas on Tuesday, 11/24, I believe.

(4) Clearly, anyone who is going to alter a film like this is also going to swap out the copies. You can’t copy the original and suppress it, and then have three unaltered versions of the original floating around. My hypothesis certainly does suppose that the three “first generation copies” that exist today [one at the 6FM in Dallas and the other two at the Archives] are NOT true “first day copies,” but are the swaps, i.e., copies of the altered film. And indeed, the three first generation copies that exist today do indeed mirror the content in the “extant” film in cold storage at the Archives. My hypothesis presumes the 3 copies were also made at Hawkeyeworks in Rochester, soon after the new so-called “original” (which was intended to mimic an out-of-camera original film) was created there. I presume that the swaps were done on Monday, 11/25 (the day of JFK’s funeral) because soon after that, copies began to proliferate (the FBI made copies of its copy before sending it back to Dallas on Tuesday). Any swap-outs in Washington HAD to be made on Monday; Zapruder had to give up his “first day copy” to LIFE soon after the resale of the film to LIFE on Monday.

(5) Too complicated, you say? No. Consider this. There are two strong indications that the three first generation copies today are NOT the “same day copies” being viewed the weekend of the assassination (by Rather, DeLoach, Zapruder, Swartz, and others).

First, they are “bracketed” exposures: one is too dark, one is just right, and one is a bit light. And yet the lab technician who first answered Rollie Zavada’s question in 1997/98 stated that the Jamieson lab had NOT, repeat NOT bracketed the 3 contact prints when they were exposed. The Jamieson lab used the same light pack for all three contact prints. (The ARRB’s Kodak consultant Rollie Zavada, who exhibits a bias in favor of authenticity, later jawboned Bruce Jamieson, a-la Arlen Specter, and got Jamieson to agree to a leading speculative question that the 3 contact prints “may” have been bracketed after all. But the first answer Zavada got when he posed the question was: “we did not bracket the 3 exposures.”

Now, an additional indicator that the 3 first generation copies today are not the same as the 3 “first day copies” is this: the lab techs at Jamieson thought (in 1997) that they had used a “full aperture” setting on their contact printer that would have meant the much studied intersprocket image content on the true camera original film should have been REPRODUCED on all 3 first day copies. And yet, on the 3 first generation copies today, there are NO intersprocket images, and the area between the sprocket holes is black, which means that the original was masked off when they were made. So, the three first generation. copies today are not consistent with the aperture setting used at the Jamieson lab.

(6) All three first generation copies today exhibit the same blacking out of the back of JFK’s head (frames 317, 321, 323 in particular), because they are copies of the extant film in cold storage in the Archives. So Jim DiEugenio’s comment on this score, as I read his comment, was incorrect. But the 35 mm dup. negative of the forensic copy at the Archives—purchased by Sydney Wilkinson in California—is being used to study the anomalies in image content, because it of much better quality.

(7) We do not know whether the two briefing boards made by Brugioni and his team at event # 1 still exist or not. All we know is that the CIA did not cough them up to the ARRB. (No surprise there.) They (the CIA) had no problem offering up the 4 briefing board panels from event # 2 since all the prints on those panels match the extant film in the Archives.

(8) In response to another comment in this thread, if the car stop was removed, then that optical excision also removed the forward head movement seen by Rather and DeLoach. I do not believe it would have been possible to remove the car stop without a massive “jump cut” unless Zapruder had pushed the “slow motion” button on his camera and was really filming at 48 fps instead of 16. All the camera operator had to do to triple the frame rate and shoot at so-called “slow motion” was press downward on the operating switch with a little additional pressure. I believe Zapruder shot at 48 fps, and this may explain why the turn from Houston to Elm is not present in the film today—the change in frame rate and exposure which would have been obvious for many frames, once Zapruder hit the “slow motion” switch, probably had to be removed. If they had not been, anyone studying the film today would ask, “where are the missing frames?”

(9) My work with the medical evidence and the work of most JFK researchers posits that there was not just “one head shot,” to respond to another question in this thread. Dr. David Mantik and I believe there were three (3) head shots that hit President Kennedy: one low in the back of the head, from behind; one high above the right eye (high in the forehead, at the hairline, which was hidden by his bangs at Parkland Hosp.), from the right front; and one in the right temple just forward of and slightly above the right ear, also from the right front (a different location), which caused the big blowout in the back of the head seen by Clint Hill and everyone at Parkland.

I think that is enough for this venue. I strongly encourage anyone who wants to study the 2 NPIC events in more detail to use the link above and read the long essay posted at Lew Rockwell.

93 comments

  1. Jordan says:

    Personally, I find Mr. Zapruder and his unique set of circumstances to be rather curious.

    Too much intimacy with those “in the know” at the time, and too conveniently a chance cinematographer for my liking.

    • JSA says:

      Really??

      I don’t find that to be credible. If anything, Zapruder was an inconvenient obstacle who made things more difficult for the plotters, is my take. The ideal situation would be to have no press, no filming at all, and as few witnesses as possible. Then, when the shooting is done, act as quickly as possible to clean up the car, the crime scene, and the dead body. Bump off the accused assassin as quickly as possible, and bump off any witnesses who “talk too much.” Seal it up with an official commission, and you’re done. If anyone questions the official version, marginalize them the same way big tobacco did to those who questioned whether smoking was safe, or like the fossil fuel lobby does to those who question whether dumping all that carbon into the atmosphere is really a good idea.

      • Jordan says:

        Actually, it would seem to me that they did just as you stated, and since his film was not publicly shown, the public simply took for granted its authenticity as part of the “mission” of the WC.

        Most people were not aware of contradictory evidence, alternate plausible events, and swallowed what the media espoused as factual.

        Looking back with the benefit of the information at hand, along with sound reasonings borne of experience and observation, leads me to understand that their are serious issues with the “promoted” story.

        I say this not wishing to insist that there must have been more to it, but rather because of the obvious holes and connections that have gone unexplored to the point of avoidance by every investigatory body to date.

    • TFS says:

      Comming late to this.

      Given the questions over the authenticity of the Zupruder film, how does it/or not match with the dictabelt recording?

  2. GM says:

    Does Dan Rather think the Zapruder footage he watched immediately after the assassination was the same as the one that was released in the 1970s?

      • GM says:

        @Leslie

        That link is not working. Video has been deleted.

        • leslie sharp says:

          GM strange, I watched it last night for the umpteenth time.

          try this …. or simply google Dan Rather ITEK JFK

          ITEK Corporation Kennedy Head & Body Movement …
          ► 2:36► 2:36
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pThaUVLENMY
          Mar 10, 2014 – Uploaded by JFK Assassination Forum
          … Head & Body Movement Analysis Of The Zapruder JFK Assass… … Dan Rather Correctly …
          [PDF]

          • Gerry Simone says:

            If the backward movement is a ‘subjective interpretation’, how the heck did Dan Rather get it ‘right’ back in 1963 before Itek’s work, when he said the head moved violently forward? (What a load of crap).

            In any event, if the bullet came from behind, you’d think JFK would be pushed forward into Connally’s seat.

            Itek doesn’t take into account the effect of jiggle or blur on their measurement of the alleged forward movement between 312 and 313.

            This was examined by David Wimp and presented by Josiah Thompson at last year’s NID conference. Check out this slide that I photographed (if not already enlarged, the option is there):

            http://tinypic.com/r/330g13t/8

            BTW, the video’s suggestion that JFK’s backward movement might have been caused by Jackie, is ludicrous.

          • leslie sharp,
            You link the, ITEK Corporation Kennedy Head & Body Movement to the Dan Rather statements after seeing the Zapruder film. But their can be no such connection as the what ITEK proves is a moment of time so short as to be beyond human visual perception.
            It is my view that Rather was lying and was rewarded with the career he enjoyed the rest of his life. He was reading a script. He may not have seen any films whatsoever. It is people such as this who are chosen for such positions in the US propaganda system.
            \\][//

    • Jordan says:

      My understanding is that the apparent forward motion applies to all the objects in those frames not just JFK’s head, and is due to the camera shaking….

      • “My understanding is that the apparent forward motion applies to all the objects in those frames not just JFK’s head, and is due to the camera shaking.”~Jordan

        That is the revised opinion of Josiah Thompson. But the ITEK studies seem to prove him wrong on that point. The JFK head reaction is one explained by modern ballistic science:

        “When examining the Zapruder film frame by frame, it is readily apparent the President Kennedy’s head moves forward slightly for one frame before his head and shoulders move backward in response to the gunshot wound to the head. German wound ballistic researcher Bernd Karger, states initial transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, prior to target movement with the force of the moving bullet. Karger found greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008). Wound ballistic researcher Robin Coupland used high-speed photography to confirm and document the forward movement into the line of fire referenced by Karger (Coupland, 2011). Researchers Karger and Coupland noted the force in a moving bullet is energy of motion, or kinetic energy. Upon impact, the bullet pushes against the head, and initially, as the weight of the head is greater than the weight of the bullet, the head moves against the line of fire. As the projectile slows, more kinetic energy transfers to the target. A overcoming the weight of the head with a sufficient transfer of energy causes the target to move with the continued direction of force of the moving bullet. Application of contemporary wound ballistics research to the movement observed in the Zapruder film indicates a minute forward motion followed by more pronounced rearward movement—consistent with a single shot from the front.”~Fiester
        \\][//

        • theNewDanger says:

          Fiester is correct. A shot from behind would only cause the reaction seen in frames 228-229 of a still conscious JFK (while an unconscious JFK would have been driven forward slightly to the left into the back of Connolly’s seat after somewhat of a split-second whiplash impact, a motion that only would have occurred only because JFK was incapacitated or already dead i.e. no conscious resistance to force).

    • Jordan says:

      I think DR said what he had no choice but to say. Towing the party line is usually good for your career.

  3. BradR says:

    Why alter the film when it clearly demonstrates the presence of a conspiracy as it is? I believe that the most famous Army sniper of Vietnam has stated that the shot sequence as noted in the film was physically impossible for said sniper to duplicate. If so, then it was impossible for Oswald to have completed the assassination by himself-even if he was involved to some extent. Only an experienced killer ( or more likely killers) could have pulled this off. The Zapruder copies out there certainly do not change this conclusion.

  4. Larry Schnapf says:

    Doug,

    great interview and enjoyed reading your 2012 piece. I havent studied the Rochester trip all that much so wondering what documentation is there about the film being flown to Rochester. do we have flight info, who took the film there, etc?

    Larry Schnapf

    • Douglas Horne says:

      Thank you.

      The only “documentation” that the Z film was in Rochester at Hawkeyeworks are the 6 interviews (3 each) conducted by the ARRB staff (me and others) with Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter; and of course the fact that an unslit 16 mm wide double 8 film showed up Sunday night at NPIC, one night after an 8 mm Z film was at NPIC.

      Homer McMahon was adamant that “Bill Smith” of the Secret Service told them he couriered the film from Hawkeyeworks in Rochester. Ben Hunter did not remember what “Bill Smith” said about the film’s origin, but he DID remember CAPT Sands being there to let them in that night. McMahon discussed Bill Smith and his statements at all 3 of his ARRB interviews.

      Homer McMahon was a most credible witness, when talking about what he did with the film that night back in 1963, as far as Jeremy Gunn and I were concerned.

      I recommend you listen to the one ARRB-Homer McMahon interview that was audiotaped—the second one, dated July 14, 1997. You can assess his credibility yourself.

      As far as paper documentation, all I can say is that people engaged in compartmentalized operations do not generally leave records.

      • AGJ says:

        Mr. Horne,

        Thank you for your years of service and your pursuit of the facts in this case.

        During your interview time with Dino B. did you ever ask him to watch the current version of the Zapruder film and comment on any differences it displays from the version he was tasked with producing the NIPC prints from in event#1?

        I know I would of wanted to get his recollections of the film he saw several times from start to finish.

        I guess I’m asking did you get him to comment on the turn onto Elm Street, any break in recording? The Stemmons Freeway Sign=any damage to it?, Umbrella Man his pumping up n down? The dark complected man? The limo slowing or complete stop? Greers head turns, Connely’s actions, Jackie’s move onto the trunk, could you see what she was trying to retrieve with her hand etc etc???

        Did you get the chance to discuss these things with him???

        Kindest Regards,

        AG Johnson.

  5. Keller Jackson III says:

    My suggestion to Mr. Horne is to redo his interview & ask Dino Brugioni on camera if HE saw the Elm Street turn from Houston Street, The limo stopping & JFK’s head being thrown violently forward & publicize his answers in another video presentation.

    I also ask that he consider that Dino was working with the copy Zapruder lent to the SS & not the original. The material above & behind JFK’s head that extended into several frames could have been the result of artifacts created during the copying process in Dallas.

    I also ask that Mr. Horne consider that SS Chief Rowley had additional briefing boards with enlargements from the Z-film made because he was dissatisfied with the 1st set of boards. You’ll notice there are more briefing boards in the 2nd set with a storyline/timeline that Dino did not make on the 1st set.

    Finally, I ask Mr. Horne to consider that Rowley has one of his agents take the copy of the Z-film to Hawkeye & have it copied (in case Rowley had to surrender his borrowed copy back to Zapruder unexpectedly)& that the end NPIC event consisted of working with a copy of the Zapruder copy in the possession of Chief Rowley.

    • Frank says:

      Paragraph 1: I also wondered what else DB saw. Perhaps his memory is clouded by all the work he did specific to the individual frames he was directed to work on and therefore doesn’t have that first run-through crystal clear in his mind. Not that he is lacking in mental capacity in any way, just perhaps because of his focus on single frames that evening.

      Paragraph 2: Trust DB’s profound expertise to easily sort photographic noise from photographic content. That is his gift. His professional judgement is beyond question in that regard. Also, are you suggesting that the copying you speculate on in paragraph 4 worked to filter the noise back out? Hawkeye was the best in the world. Anything that was there on the film would still be there in the copy, and if noise is inherent in the process, it would be increased or stay the same in the next generation, not decrease.

      Paragraph 3: Bring on the first set of boards. That will clarify it. They seem to have been treated as a hot potato though, according to DB as he was severely chastised for even having kept a set, which he got rid of as directed.

      Paragraph 4: It makes sense to copy the film, but why present it as an unsplit camera original to event #2 personnel (instead of as a copy along with the ‘original’ in the same delivery to the lab)? Why go to the trouble of compartmentalizing the two events?

      Taking the highly credible DB at his word, and those of the event #2 personnel, it is very difficult to construct a logical overlay to the events that does not include deception. The only avenue for those wishing to interpret them as benign is to attack DB’s credibility and motives. On that front there is dead silence, and rightly so, I’m sure.

      • Douglas Horne says:

        Frank,

        You are correct. When one assesses both NPIC events, # 1 and # 2, the intent to deceive is obvious and cannot be challenged.

    • Douglas Horne says:

      Mr. Jackson,

      There is no need to “re-do” the interview. You have only seen portions of it (it was over 4 hours long). Peter Janney in 2009 interviewed Brugioni extensively on the telephone about 6 or 7 times (all recorded on MP3 audio). Dino was asked repeatedly if he saw JFK’s head thrown back and to the left, and he said no, he didn’t recall that, but he also did NOT say “that didn’t happen.” That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, or that it was not in the camera-original movie; it just means that if it WAS in the film he examined, he did not recall it 46 years later. Dino was also asked repeatedly in 2009 if he remembered seeing the turn from Houston to Elm, or a brief car stop. He said “no” on many occasions.

      HOWEVER, he made it clear on more than one occasion that his memory now, and his attention that night, was focused on two events: the limousine around the Stemmons freeway sign, and the enormous head shot explosion. Having heard his responses over many, many hours of questioning, it is clear that his recollections of the image content in the film can be likened to viewing a Chinese landscape painting, where one sees the peaks of the mountains coming out of the mist, but not the whole mountain. On one occasion when being asked such questions, he responded: “I was focused on the individual frames.” (By this he meant the making of internegatives of the frames he was asked to study by the Secret Service agents.)

      I am quite confident Dino was not working with the S.S. first-day copy received in the middle of the night from Dallas. If he had been, he would not have been confronted with a situation where the film’s two couriers had just gotten off an airplane and come from the airport—and remember, they had not seen the film yet. If he had been working with the S.S. first day copy he would probably have received it about mid-day (not 10 PM), and the courier would surely have been familiar with its contents already.

      If the second set of boards was a routine re-do, as you suggest, Dino and the same crew would have been called back in. Dino was the duty officer that Friday through Monday.

      I think you are missing the point that the second Z film (event # 2) was a reconstructed, unslit double 8 movie that was still 16 mm wide with opposing (upside down and backwards) image strips on it. This has “fraud” written all over it, since the camera original and all 3 first day copies were slit to 8 mm on Friday.

      To recap, in my video interview of Dino in 2011 there was no need to recover areas that I knew he had no recollection of. I focused on the areas where I knew he had strong, confident memories, based on the many 2009 interviews.

      • Alex S says:

        With all due respect to your own work, if you are referring to the interview by Peter Janney that you played on Black Op Radio late last year, I would recommend forgetting it completely as a source.

        Janney’s interview technique is so emotional and leading as to make Brugioni’s comments utterly worthless from an oral history point of view. Even if Brugioni’s recollections are accurately portrayed in this interview, a point which I am not willing to concede since hearing the audio, such poorly conducted questioning can, rightly or wrongly, be used by anti-conspiracy propagandists to portray all conspiracy research as theory-driven.

  6. Bill Pierce says:

    Mr. Horne:

    What’s the premise for Z film alteration? That the CIA had fielded a team of three or four assassins shooting from different positions . . . but the Agency wanted to blame it all on Oswald? And exonerate the Secret Service which had helpfully brought the limo to a complete stop in order to facilitate an easier ambush?

    And, as part of that carefully orchestrated plan, did the CIA and/or the Secret Service (clairvoyantly) prearrange the hijacking of the film (original and copies), and then make alterations . . . but leave images that appear to show frontal wounding to JFK’s throat and, more important, a frontal hit to JFK’s head? [Reminder: the film was suppressed for thirteen years until Americans were desensitized to political murder and widespread government and military corruption. And when the film was finally broadcast (supposedly surreptitiously), EVERY viewer believed that JFK had been hit from the front.]

    The tale of the two briefing boards is interesting but not particularly sinister. I agree with your pre-autopsy thesis (though not necessarily sinister) and your substitute brain thesis. But the Z-film alteration argument doesn’t make much sense.

    • Douglas Horne says:

      A Zapruder film could not be circulated that showed a large exit wound in the right rear of the head that contradicted the autopsy photos placed in the official record (of the intact back of the head), and which was such obvious evidence for a lethal shot from the front (which would all by itself have contradicted the government’s legend about the lone assassin firing from behind).

      • “A Zapruder film could not be circulated that showed a large exit wound in the right rear of the head that contradicted the autopsy photos placed in the official record (of the intact back of the head), and which was such obvious evidence for a lethal shot from the front (which would all by itself have contradicted the government’s legend about the lone assassin firing from behind).”~Douglas Horne on August 7, 2014 at 1:32 pm

        Nonsense, if the Z-film was supposedly altered the night of the 23rd, the results of the autopsy could not have been available to those who are presumed to have faked the film.
        \\][//

  7. Peter says:

    Mr. Horne, do you believe that Rather and Deloach truly saw footage showing the head snapping forward, or that that was just their spin to fit the official story at the time– especially given the presumption that the public would never see the entire Z film? Also, I’m perplexed as to why the head-forward frames would be excised while the much more suspicious head snapping backward frames remain?

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Peter,

      I was told by a researcher that the late William Penn Jones, Jr., asked Dan Rather outside his home, as to why he said JFK moved violently forward when the opposite was true.

      Dan Rather just said “I must’ve been mistaken”.

      • jeffc says:

        Another possibility is that Dan Rather did not actually watch the film, but received a briefing telling him what the film contained and encouragement to claim he saw the film, which for Rather professionally would have been a scoop. This process may have been repeated with the Life Magazine reporter who wrote that the film showed JFK turn around and face the TSBD when he was shot in the throat.

      • Very ironic reply by Rather…given that WC lawyers told witnesses who said there were shots from the Grassy Knoll that THEY must have been mistaken.

  8. Douglas Horne says:

    Peter,

    I believe today that Rather and DeLoach truly saw what they described—a forward head snap.

    They were both viewing, remember, first day copies of the camera original.

    The fact that neither of them described a rapid motion of JFK’s head and body “back and to the left” (nor did Dino Brugioni) tells me that it is highly likely that this extreme motion in the extant film is largely an artifact of optical frame excision. As I see it, the Z film, when played back at “normal speed,” appears speeded up (back-and-to-the-left) where frames were excised in the making of the altered, sanitized film. The frames excised were surely the exit debris (traveling to the left rear) from a shot from the right front, seen in the film by Zapruder’s friend Erwin Swartz, and of course seen by hosts of witnesses (especially the Willis family) in Dealey Plaza.

    I believe that his body did travel in this direction, but in reality much more slowly, and that the speed of that motion was accelerated due to frame removal. I am supported in this view by many others with “alterationist” views.

    Remember the finding of the ITEK corporation in the mid 1970s that there was no bullet on earth that would have caused the rapid back-and-to-the-left motion seen in the Z film? That finding supports the hypothesis that the rapidity of the back-and-to-the-left motion is an artifact of frame excision using an optical printer.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Mr. Horne,

      I’ve seen a bootleg copy of the Z-film (obtained indirectly through legitimate channels) narrated by the late Penn Jones, Jr.

      Immediately following the fatal head shot, the rearward ejection of tissue was more noticeable than other versions including digitized ones. The best way to describe it was pieces that were fluttering. It happens momentarily of course.

      I would imagine that the version played during the trial of Clay Shaw would’ve shown this.

      • This is the real story here.

      • Tom says:

        I’m playing catch up here. Having been away and only recently finished the Horne lectures at Future of Freedom Foundation and only recently viewed his interview with Bruigioni. First time for me for the chain of custody issues of body arrival, autopsy, and Zapruder film to become clear and ordered. Thanks Mr. Horne.
        One loose end for he is what was A.Zapruder’s testimony regarding any viewing of these films after the altered copies had been made. In one of these threads his testimony at the Shaw trial is transcribed. Simone suggests here that the version at the Shaw trial was original. Is there a more developed and expand narrative of all the Zapruder films and their respective chains of custody existing somewhere?

    • Tom says:

      Why would Quentin Schwen (sp?) have been shown a post mortem photograph of President Kennedy as part of a job recruitment pitch? Weird. Plausible, of course, given how crazy this case shows the world to be but why, why would they pull that out to show him?

  9. Keller Jackson III says:

    The 1st NPIC event is troublesome to some of those trying to follow Mr. Horne’s video & essay presentations online. Why would the SS (Chief Rowley, his representatives or superiors)create visual briefing boards on a film about to be falsified as directed by the SS? Why weren’t the 1st NPIC event boards destroyed before, during or after the 2nd event briefing boards were created? According to Dino, the 1st event boards stayed locked up at NPIC until the Rockefeller Commission & Dino got chewed out for having them at NPIC. Indeed, the 2nd NPIC event suggests to some someone between Chief Rowley entered the picture & ordered the film modified the Z-film. Presumably, Rowley never saw the 2nd set of boards. Who in government has the power & clout to pull something like that off? Imagine the response if Chief Rowley briefed a government entity with the 1st set of briefing boards (containing enlargements of film frames excised from the Z-film or otherwise distorted from their original state). Rowley wouldn’t have been SS Chief very long.

    • Phil Gurholt says:

      If the events happened as described, maybe CIA Director McCone, a JFK appointee, did not want to be part of any destruction of evidence. He may have been the one that sent the CIA’s copy of Dino’s boards back to NPIC when he resigned as Director of the CIA.

  10. Otus Chambers says:

    Mr. Horne may have uncovered evidence of an attempt to set the SS up should the Zapruder film alteration be discovered. If one takes away the assumption that the agents with the different films were genuine SS agents & substitutes imposters one arrives at a totally different interpretation of the events that took place at NPIC & Hawkeye. If one adds SS imposters at NPIC on two separate events to the SS imposter behind the grassy knoll that equates to 3 times the assassination weekend. There are those who doubt the SS was even aware of the NPIC events nor that the SS ever received briefing boards. SS credentials are supplied by the CIA.
    While I can’t prove it, I believe Zapruder turned his original film over to CIA operatives Friday night when he was supposedly ‘driving around Dallas aimlessly’ while upset. The Saturday morning Stolley original Z-film story is a cover story IMO. In a nutshell, Zapruder turned his film over to some of the very people that murdered JFK in many minds & they went into CYA immediately.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Have you seen “Images of an Assassination” produced by the Zapruder family?

      Abraham Zapruder was a savvy businessman who ensured he got statutory declarations signed by those who received his film and/or copies.

      I doubt he was wandering aimlessly. They came to him.

      • Otus Chambers says:

        I agree with you. The driving around aimlessly trying to get his head together while Stolley kept trying to reach Zapruder by phone was part of the early legend of Mr. Zapruder. It may have been started by Manchester. Back in the day bits & pieces of info about assassination witnesses appeared sporadically in newspaper stories, magazine articles, books, CBS TV news documentaries &, of course, the Warren Report. In the 1st Life magazine following the assassination, black & white stills from Zapruder’s film were printed but no interview with Zapruder or Sitzman. No other Elm St. vicinity witnesses were interviewed either. No Newman Family, no Moorman, no Willis family. Just the film stills & Life magazine dictating what each represented. The best of the 3 Life issues publicized following the assassination is the one where Life states JFK looked back towards the TSBD & Oswald shot him in the throat. None of the film stills showed this & no retraction or apology was printed by the magazine for the misinformation/factoid. Once it was disclosed that Luce & C.D. Jackson were tied to the CIA it became apparent to many people that the CIA was selling its version of events via Life magazine.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Possibly. The CIA has its assets.

          Ironically, that early story about JFK looking back at the TSBD at the moment he was shot in the throat is a better explanation than that wound being an exit wound.

          (I will be meeting a retired researcher this Friday for dinner who demonstrated a link back when between CBS and a business icon who had ties with the CIA. Will report back.)

  11. Brad Milch says:

    If one follows the past pattern, once startling info is released to the public some expert or authority surfaces from nowhere to debunk it. This happened when Zapruder alteration 1st became a hot topic for discussion & Roland Zavala popped up debunking all of it.
    Doug Horne’s obvious weakness in his interpretation of the NPIC double events is not having a participant from inside Hawkeye to explain the unslit double 8 film taken to NPIC for the 2nd event.

    It will be interesting in future days if such an expert or authority publicly appears to debunk Mr. Horne. I expect something along the lines of all super 8 slit home movies copied by Hawkeye produced an unslit double 8 copy because of limitations of the equipment (or something similar). If that does occur, Mr. Horne has still achieved a first; penetrating the wall of secrecy of Hawkeye & what went on inside the facility in regards to Zapruder’s film (and other ambush films).

    • jeffc says:

      Just to be clear, Roland Zavada was a senior Kodak engineer brought in to the Assassination Record Review Board to examine the Zapruder film and the Bell & Howell camera which shot the film. While there have been sketchy “experts” who have appeared over the years to perform debunking or to postulate untenable theories to support the official conclusions, Zavada shouldn’t be listed in that group.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Mr. Zavada is very knowledgeable, and I got lost in his detailed explanations.

        If he gave brief explanations to the more popular theories for alterations with clear examples, that might have sunk in more.

        Lancer had him as a guest in November 2013.

        I will probably order his presentation on DVD too for further study.

  12. Charles Beyer says:

    It’s easy for me to understand now why assassination witnesses were scared or afraid to talk about it after the event. One could even postulate that had evidence of JFK being shot in the head multiple times rapidly NOT been removed from the visual record all witnesses in the immediate vicinity of the shooting would have had to be tracked down & eliminated to prevent them from spreading what they saw happen in real time. It appears it was easier & more cost effective to remove evidence from the Z-film at the time & it also saved government of 1963-1964 from responding to public demand to locate, arrest & try all involved in murdering President Kennedy had the public seen Zapruder’s film in its virgin state broadcast on TV or in movie theatres.
    Fortunately, witnesses like the Newman family, Mary Moorman (Kramer), Franzen family, Pierce Allman & a few others are still alive to verify or dispute the Zapruder film as we know it. When asked if the Zapruder film accurately depicts the assassination as she saw it, Mary replied in a fairly recent Internet interview, “Not really”.

  13. Rob says:

    Awesome clip, really enlightening. Really makes one think something is amiss.

  14. Jeremy Faust says:

    Doug Horne’s research & the video supporting it clearly indicate the public is still at square one in regards to the murder of JFK; that being the unexpected announcement 50 years ago that President Kennedy had been ambushed & murdered. Sincere investigators do not destroy or distort vital evidence in a crime of this magnitude. When one takes in how the victim, his death car, his autopsy & his inquest were all mishandled by Federal investigators, it becomes quite obvious this was an ‘inside job’ from start to finish. It appears from current apathetic post assassination Federal officials it’s destined to remain an unsolved ‘inside job’, making one wonder who would want a job like President if this is the treatment one receives when attacked & killed.

  15. Bob Truitt says:

    Does anyone find it interesting in 40 replies and over 2 months that not one clarification or challenge has come from any of the Big 3 (Davison, May or McAdams) on Doug Horne zooms in on the Z film? I guess the truth really will set you free. This new evidence being found shows the fraud and deception in the cover-up that occupied following the JFK hit is now uncontested!

    • Maybe we think it’s so silly that it’s not worth bothering with.

      After all, it comes from a Lifton disciple who thinks the body was altered.

      But you might read David Wrone’s The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination, which shows that the stuff that Horne believes happened could not have.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Bob,

      I and others responded to Horne’s theory here:

      http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/rewinding-the-zapruder-film/

      I asked a question there that no one responded to, so I’ll try again. Near the beginning of the Dino Brugioni video at the above link, Horne says that the actual head wound was low on the back of the head and was “blacked out” when the film was altered, and that the wound on the side/top of JFK’s head was “painted on.” He also says that Brugioni saw the authentic “original” Z film.

      Great! If Brugioni saw the film before it was altered, he should’ve seen the “real” exit wound on the back of the head, right? Well, no. He described a head wound exploding out the TOP of JFK’s head.

      In other words, Brugioni’s description seems to be evidence that the Z film was NOT altered, since he saw the wound that was supposedly “painted on” later and did not see the “real” wound that was supposedly blacked out. If there’s some explanation for this that I’m missing, I’d like to hear it.

    • Photon says:

      Anybody dumb enough to believe that 3 shots hit JFK’s head cannot be taken seriously.
      Any medical “expert” who believes that the postmortem wound interpretation of a radiation oncologist trumps those of 30 board certified forensic pathologists knows nothing about forensic medical evidence.
      Any one who believes that one of the autopsy physicians did “postmortem surgery” on JFK’s head is totally ignorant of what is even possible with a deceased cadaver, let alone that pathologists are not trained in surgery, let alone in the plastic surgery techniques that would be required to even approximate the claims of Mr. Horne. Even today the postmortem alterations that Horne claimed were done with 1963 medical technology are impossible.
      Cutting to the quick, the film alterations claimed by Mr. Horne simply were not possible with the technology available at the time.
      So it is easy to see why the “Big Three” have not wasted their time on a subject based on so many provable errors. But I am sure that many conspiracy theorists unable or unwilling to actually ask questions about the veracity of Mr. Horne’s claims lap it up. Apparently other members of the ARRB had similar attitudes in regard to Mr. Horne’s deductive ability. Frankly, $84 is a pretty steep price to pay for a book based on faulty assumptions such as those mentioned above.

      • “Cutting to the quick, the film alterations claimed by Mr. Horne simply were not possible with the technology available at the time.”~Photon

        This is one instance where I do agree with Photon. Not because he is technically proficient enough to make such a call, but because I am. And I will up the anti and say that with the technology available to this very day; it is not possible to create an undetectable forged copy of the Z-film to Kodachrome II.
        \\][//

      • Pedro says:

        Read Gawler’s funeral home guy, Tom Robinson told the ARRB that Humes did take out JFK’s brain prior to the autopsy start of 8 PM. At the 8 PM, Humes said, “There was surgery to the head area.” The FBI wrote it down in their 301. Quoted. Look up excised wound and you’ll realize that triangle cut into Kennedy’s forehead, every Dr. in the world says that was not caused by any bullet. It was man made. So before you continue to sling dung at Horne, you’re wrong in this case. An “excised wound.”

        When Humes started at 8, he said the brain just, “fell out into his hands.” He didn’t have to cut the brain stem, he had done that 80 or so minutes earlier.

  16. Mariano says:

    Jean, perhaps further questions could have been asked in the interview about the wounds in the original Z film (difficult to do if no one has access to it), however if it was established by Brugioni that there were painting alterations to the back and the side of the head of the president in the extant Z film, we have evidence of an altered film (in addition to the other evidence brought to light in the interview of alterations made).
    Photon, Brugioni also stated that some of the technicians at Hawkeye had the capabilities to do anything in terms of alterations to film.

  17. “Rollie Zavada, who exhibits a bias in favor of authenticity, later jawboned Bruce Jamieson, a-la Arlen Specter”~Doug Horne

    The above is spurious rhetoric;
    Horne makes these disparaging characterizations here without offering the context or the actual dialog between Zavada and Jamieson.

    Horne says that Zavata “exhibits a bias in favor of authenticity,” which is simply a subjective assessment by Horne, who himself exhibits equally a bias in favor of alteration.

    Further Horne’s likening of Zavata to a perceived villain Arlen Specter, is a psychological ploy to plant a seed of distrust in the mind of the reader.

    Horne has a big problem with Zavata, as well as Raymond Fielding, in that he cannot successfully dispute their technical arguments against the Alterationist position. So his only option is to attack the character of his opponents.

    I would point out that Horne uses psychological manipulation quite boldly, quite often, if you are aware of such techniques of interrogation. In his video interview with Brugioni, we find such emotional prompts as (to paraphrase)”how did it feel to be treated this way by people you had known for so long?”; this is a psychological cue to the subject under interrogation, one with two goals, to feign pity suggestively, and to disturb the emotional stability of the subject and gain his trust.

    These techniques are part of modern interrogation tactics drawn from the science of Neurolinguistics, that are predated by natural born intuitive hucksters such as tent revival preachers, faith healers, and snake-oil salesmen of the past.
    \\][//

  18. “They (the FBI) flew it to Baltimore Saturday night (11/23) and it was being viewed by Cartha DeLoach and others at FBI HQ early Sunday morning just after midnight (11/24). Just as Dan Rather observed on Monday, Cartha DeLoach wrote in his memoirs that JFK’s head went sharply FORWARD when he watched the film. (These two corroborating observations are strong indicators that the extant film in the Archives today is an alteration.) The loaned first-day copy at FBI HQ was returned to Dallas on Tuesday, 11/24, I believe.”~Doug Horne
    . . . . .
    Cartha DeLoach was deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States, in which post he was the third most senior official in the FBI after J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson.

    But Horne “believes” DeLoach’s journal testament. And he accepts Dan Rather’s story as well. Unlike Arlen Specter, these two infamous characters are taken at face value by Horne. Why? because their words support his agenda; but oh no! Horne isn’t biased like Zavata is!
    \\][//

  19. Jean-Louis Seguin says:

    It is highly unlikely that Zapruder shot the film at the 48fps setting. If this had been the case, each individual frame would exhibit much less motion blur than we currently observe as it would have been exposed at 1/100th of a second instead of 1/35th of a second at 18fps.

  20. Gary Majewski says:

    Doug Horne,
    Do you have the latest update for the film study being done in California. Is this info available, if so where may it be obtained?
    Thanks,
    Gary

  21. STUDY 1
    Edge print analysis and supporting technical information – Zapruder film out of camera original, and the two first generation Secret Service copies. At National Archives on September 8 & 9, 1997.
    -Rolland Zavada

    http://www.jfk-info.com/zstudy1a.pdf
    \\][/

    • Gary Majewski says:

      Willy,
      I assume your post is meant to help answer my question above. As I have read the entire Zavada report several times in it’s entirety, I still appreciate your reference/response.
      I was referring to research into potential alteration being done by some folks in California that Doug Horne mentions in a You-tube video presentation.
      Do you know of the status/results of that undertaking? Is any info available?
      Thanks,
      Gary

      • Gary,

        You ask about Doug Horne’s supposed “Hollywood film experts”.

        I, like you have been waiting close to 5 years now for some verification of WHO these people are, and what there opinions really are.
        I have heard nothing further, other than Horne was involved with a film “Coup in Camelot” which is supposed to address this issue. Unfortunately that was a flash in the pan, and nothing has come of it…
        \\][//

        • Bart Kamp says:

          From what I have been told, a DVD which will include those scans will be released Nov 2016.

          • Pedro says:

            I guess they will wait for 11/22/2016 before they take the scans public. You don’t need the scans, look at frame 314, 315, all the way to 374, and the back of Kennedy’s head is “crudely” as Doug Horne puts it, IS BLACKED OUT WITH A Sharpie like black splotch. The head turn of driver William Greer around 302-303, is impossible to do in an 1/18 of a second. Anybody that doesn’t believe that film is a hoax, Jim DeEugenio, Robert Groden Josiah Thompson, they don’t believe it.

            Too many of these guys are so “vested” in their theories, that they just aren’t open to new things, especially if it involves admitting everything you’ve hung your hat on, the Z Film, for decades is a fake and you got played.

  22. Bart Kamp says:

    With regards the blacking out of the head.
    I think the screen grabs I made 48 hours ago emphasise this clearly.
    http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/photos/album?albumid=15863751

    Click the link
    Click slideshow
    Click full screen after the slidehow appears)
    Check shots 4/5/6 and above all the close-ups.

  23. D. E. Mitchell says:

    Ike knew, as did a large number of those involved in the military industry and those who were involved in right wing or like -minded political thinking…much like the july 20 plot to kill Hitler. many either were “neutral” or took some part (on their own) to “cover up” any conspiracy after the “BIG EVENT.”

    Sad….but very likely true!

  24. D. E. Mitchell says:

    This is one reason that the “truth” and “political depth” by which the Event or attack on November 22nd will never be truly known. Operation Mongoose by CIA with the “fairly presumed” President -to-be, vice President Nixon’s involvement and for knowledge of it in the first place! After all, Kennedy DID “steal” the election, much like bush did as well, both in 2000 and 2004!
    Point being, that the military, economic and political plans by America’s leaders for the next eight to sixteen ( or more!) years! All the events that occurred during the Kennedy Administration only added to already upset feelings by those who “counted!”

  25. D. E. Mitchell says:

    Now, as far as the “BIG EVENT” itself…The “Z” film should be “reconstituted” (as best as is possible!), to help, “co-inside,” or”Reconstruct” the “jiggles” on or in all the frames within the film!
    I mean, i don’t know “very much” about film, etc., but “whatever” was “captured” on frame # “this or that,”could “possibly” show “some” adjaceint exposure or information captured on the celluloid off of the lens and/or “other” mechanical camera parts, such as the alleged “gunmen” on top of the records building, seen between the films “sprocket holes.”(Personally, I think that the “film” had been split and spliced together prior to going to “hawkeye works”, or the NPIC, and then “reconstituted”, because the people between the “sprocket holes” are “reversed” but not “upside down”, etc.)
    Correct me if i’m wrong, but the “film” would be enlarged(or certain frames of it) on a horizontal camera by several thousand times, then the “defects” could be addressed by an air brush or “whatever”, then reduced back to their original size in order to increase or not to lose the film resolution. In the “Z” films case, it would’ve been put on an optical printer(like they did when making cartoons) and re constituted the film…with a new negative and all!
    What i’m suggesting is to “flip” the film back as it was prior to the division and the splice, in order to make better sense of the ajaceint frames…if possible! Do you think that could be done? or, has it been tried?please pardon my grammar, but I never use spell check-seems like too much trouble to me!I also think that the men on top of the sheriffs/records building have been seen on other films, so…. by “flipping the frames back as they were prior to their being “split”, the beginning actions of the men on the building would actually be what the did last, as those images would’ve been captured on the opposite side of the super 8, and what they were doing at the end of the “Z” film would be what they did from the beginning…see if any “jiggles” co inside with their actions, etc.

  26. D. E. Mitchell says:

    Please forward to Doug Horne and ask him to please e-mail me. Seem to have “lost” an important FBI 302 file on Jack Ruby dated 27nov63 reported by a Ret. Navy Cmdr. living in San Diego/Pacific Beach, CA at tha time, who contacted the FBI because he believed (after the shooting of Oswald by Ruby) that the entire “EVENT” was a “extreme Right-wing Plot” etc. That he’d been involved with Clint Murchuson, and “others” etc. only to call the SAIC in SD later “that morning’ to try and “recant’ the whole thing. Told him to “forget he’d called and that he’d taken a report”!! Sound a little ‘fishy?” NAmed ALL the big boys suspected now…only….back then!!!! D.M.

  27. D. E. Mitchell says:

    Don’t know too much! Only been investigating this whole thing ever since I read, “RUSH TO JUDGEMENT”, way back in 1966! what’s that? Oh, 49 years! I don’t think there is too much that I don’t know about the “BIG EVENT!” I’ve read ALL 26v. of the WR and ALL if not Almost ALL the books that have been published on this topic! I could go on, but I hate to type-especially since i’ve been losing all my dexterity, etc(broke my neck) have Surgery at the end of this month! Happy 4th!!! DM

  28. D. E. Mitchell says:

    Oh,and one last thing. I agree with Mr. Horne regarding the head shots, with the exception of two more for a grand total of five rounds of various caliber to the head. Quite possible that the low left(white speck) C2 wound caused the right jside jaw defect visable in the “Z” film; the autopsy stills and the sterio viewer!(we could go on forever on these possibilities)Regardless;Back to the “Z”film. I believe Jack White was correct. The “background” on the film we see today, is 23% larger, witth the “transition” occurring with “the running littlegirl” when she reaches the “man in the cape”(for those who don’t know who’s who!)Splice occures at that frame and there is a change in the background. actually, i,m very tired. there begins many “anomollllllies”reduction of the windshield the highly visable splice in the film; people looking everyplace but where they should; frame dupess;limo drift;more missing frames than admitted;defects in the film caused from the optical printer(multiple) from all three overlays: the change in the stemmens signs position(the real sign partially visable from emulsion whear)and on and on. I’d say Mr. Horne, that your “friend” Dino knows more than he’s letting on! He needs to be given immunity from prosecution and testify before a secret grand jury! you could always release the remainder of his interview! or..we just wait two more years…but what if a”few’ of the “players” are still kicking? they say ‘only the good die young!”

  29. theNewDanger says:

    Frame 228-229. Study. Discuss.

  30. Pedro says:

    The Zapruder family got like $18 million and the film was already available to the public. The G paid them that much because the film doesn’t show the limo stop, Officer Bobby Hargis throwing his DPD motorcycle down on the left side of Elm St. He ran between the limo and SS car and ran up the Knoll. There are pictures of Hargis on top of the Grassy Knoll. He got back on his bike and went on to Parkland.

    But you don’t see the car stop in the Nix or Z Films. Sen. Ralph Yarborough told me in 1990, the car stopped. Hargis is heard on tape saying, “He stopped that car. I think they told him to stop the car.” The motorcycle cops were all interviewed by phone in 1971.

    AMAZING stuff, Doug Horne was impressed with Larry Rivera’s work. The anchor on Rivera is his mentor Professor Jim Fetzer. They think Sandy Hook was faked. Sad, but here you cannot throw out the baby with the bath water.

    Rivera has done the only work on the case, outside of Horne, that is ground breaking. Think about this. The G admitted they broke the original Z film. Then the headshot sequence on the Nix film was damaged at the time of the final flurry.

    • “AMAZING stuff, Doug Horne was impressed with Larry Rivera’s work. The anchor on Rivera is his mentor Professor Jim Fetzer. They think Sandy Hook was faked. Sad, but here you cannot throw out the baby with the bath water.”~Pedro

      Yes indeed Pedro “AMAZING”! Particularly when you come to realize that Jim Fetzer is the most infamous charlatan on the web, and that Larry Rivera’s work is essentially bunk. That Horne was impressed with it is indicative of Horne’s MO of buying into fabulous myths concerning the Z-film.

      The Z-film doesn’t show the limo stop because it never came to a stop. Those such as Truly who claim they saw it stop were too far to the rear to tell. I have gone through the witnesses claiming a full stop in great detail on my blog on the Z-film. There are mortal problems with each testimony claiming a full stop.
      …………….

      Clint Bradford Points out Mantik errors:

      1 >Mantik quotes Baker and Chaney as stating that the limousine stopped.
      Unfortunately, though, Baker’s statement was hearsay – he was only
      quoting what was told to him by Chaney.

      2>Mantik cites Chaney’s statement as “Warren Commission testimony.”
      Please tell me where

      3> But what Mantik DOESN’T offer
      us is Earle Brown’s “retraction” during that SAME session of testimony:

      Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped…
      After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.

      Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?

      Brown: That, I couldn’t swear to.

      Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?

      Brown: Yes; slowed down.

      Mantik replies:

      1. You are correct that Marrion L. Baker was quoting Chaney about the
      limousine stopping (3H266).

      2. You are correct that my citation for Chaney (3H221) is in error.

      3.You point out that Officer Earle Brown offered a “retraction” to my
      citation of his initial statement that the limo had stopped and you
      quote him as subsequently saying that the limo may not actually have
      stopped, but that it had slowed down. I have no objection to this.
      . . . . .
      From Kennedy’s Horsemen:
      Harges: “slowed down almost to a stop” (1971) “He wasn’t completely stopped”

      Martin at Garrison trial: “Yes sir, it was after the third shot it had almost come to a stop….it was going very slowly.”

      Harges: “slowed down almost to a stop” (1971) “He wasn’t completely stopped”

      Martin at Garrison trial: “Yes sir, it was after the third shot it had almost come to a stop….it was going very slowly.”

      Garrison trial:
      Oser: “what did the limousine do then?” (after the head-shot)
      Simmons: “It paused and then accelerated real fast after the motorcycle got out of the way.”

      Ellis: “Well no it didn’t stop, it almost stopped”

      Read more at:
      http://www.jfk-info.com/zapr-1.htm

      \\][//

  31. Jordan says:

    How do the SBT proponents account for the sharpnel wounds to the face of JFK that were filled in with “wax” according to Tom Robinson…?

    How is it possible for these wounds to have occurred if all the shots were from above and behind…?

    • “How do the SBT proponents account for the sharpnel wounds to the face of JFK that were filled in with “wax” according to Tom Robinson…?”
      ~Jordan

      I would posit that the “shrapnel” was tiny salt sized shards of glass from a bullet through the windshield–which in fact was reported by several police officers who saw the bullet hole while the limo was parked in front of Parkland Hospital.

      A guy that worked at the Ford plant that made windshields for Lincolns testified that he saw that windshield with the bullet hole when he was ordered to form a new custom made window for the Presidential Limousine.

      My links died with my last computer, but googling the info might lead you to the original stories I referred to.
      \\][//

        • Well Tom,

          Pamela Brown seems to deliver on the premise of her website:

          A SPOT FOR ALL THINGS LIMO RE THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ASSASSINATION AND BEYOND

          Thanks for the lead!
          \\][//

        • Jordan says:

          Thanks Tom.

          More to the point, has this ever really been raised as an issue to be resolved vis-a-vis the SBT…?

      • “As stated earlier, as a member of the ARRB staff, I interviewed Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter three times each between June and August of 1997. [18] A written call report was produced following each interview; additionally, the second of three Homer McMahon interviews – on July 14, 1997 – was tape recorded, and that recording may be obtained from the National Archives, along with all of the written interview reports.”~Douglas Horne
        . . . . . . .

        More McMahon testimony, this time Jeremy Gun asks some questions:

        JG: “Let me try a question?…You are acquainted with the Zapruder film, the film called the Zapruder film? Is this the Zapruder film or a different film?”

        HM: “I haven’t seen it for 35 years. Ah, I never heard Dalcruder at the time. I heard that much, much later.”

        DH: “Do you mean Dalcruder? Did you say Dalcruder?”

        HM: “He did. The man who took the most famous film was Abraham Zapruder.”

        HM: “Abraham Zapruder. I never heard that name, or if I did I don’t remember it.”

        JG: “But right now, you’re not certain whether the film you processed or that you were involved in working with was the Zapruder film…?”

        HM: “Well, I’m told it was the only coverage they had. That that was it. No one else photographed it. They said it was the only film, and I don’t know if it was or if it was the historic film.”
        […]
        HM: “I have senile dementia…I can’t remember really anything. Most of my reflections are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know I am not. I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a wet brain is? Well, you’re looking at one. I damn near died. And I’m not a competent witness because I don’t have accurate recall. I don’t have absolute recall.”

        JG: “With regards to the other events that you talked about, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that?”

        HM: “I just told you, I don’t have a full deck. I don’t know how (ha) I figured I am presenting anything here. This is not…at the time I did it I was not, I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So whether you are talking to a reliable witness or not, that’s up for you to decide. (ha)”

        \\][//

      • There is a false FMC witness, Mr. Whittaker, who actually worked at the Rouge, not FMC itself, and a true one, F.Vaughn Ferguson, who was FMC DC liaison to the WH garage and was with the car for the four days after the assassination. It was also Ferguson’s job to travel with SS100X wherever it went. However, he was removed from the Texas trip and told to stay in DC to arrange vehicles for the Army-Navy game the following weekend.

  32. Speaking of the Zapruder film, I witnessed a viewing of the film in NYC in late November 1964 at the Charles Theater. The film that I saw was clear and showed all the debris flying to the rear.

    I reference this viewing in my NID 2013 presentation “Midnight Blue to Black” which is at ss100x.wordpress.com, and have spoken of this also on the Ed forum and alt.assassination.jfk.

    • “I witnessed a viewing of the film in NYC in late November 1964 at the Charles Theater.”~Pamela Brown

      Do you have any documented proof that such a viewing ever actually occurred Ms Brown?
      \\][//

      • olle reimers says:

        Hello mr Witten; you seem to be a regular commentator so I would like to hear your take on this. By chance I had to read through the Warren Commission´s pp 96 – 107 concerning the back shot. What I found blew me away but at the same time made sense to the interview Dan Rather held with James Humes.

        What I found was that there are two sharply different descriptions of the back wound. The first comes in p 96 and largely describes what Boswell depicted in the face sheet. The second comes in p 107 where the point of entry is described to be in accordance with Rydberg´s drawing. However; between p 96 and 107 we have got a lot of technical details and descriptions of the wound as being alternately in the back and the neck; ultimately lead to believe that those two descriptions are about the same bullet wound.

        In the interview, as you may remember, Dan Rather is holding up both depictions and asks Humes if they depict the identical entry. Humes confirms that this is the case.

        • Hello Olle,

          I am not familiar with the Rather interview with Humes.

          I am however familiar with the location of the back wound at T-3, which is where Boswell’s facesheet shows it; where Burkley’s death certificate places it, where the autopsy photo shows it, where the bullet holes in the shirt and coat show it, and where Sibert and O’Neill both claimed the wound to be.

          I find this overwhelming evidence that the wound in Kennedy’s back was located just to the right of his third thoracic vertebra.

          Obviously the Rydberg drawing has it placed too high. And Rydberg himself has disavowed those illustrations.
          See:
          http://assassinationofjfk.net/for-the-sake-of-historical-accuracy/
          \\][//

          • olle reimers says:

            Hi Willy,

            I assume you have listened to the interview by now? It is extremely revealing; especially considering the wording in the WC Report.

          • Actually Olle, I still haven’t found that interview on YouTube. Do you have a URL for where that can be found?
            \\][//

  33. Gary Walker says:

    The attention on JFK’s head motion seen in frames of a possibly altered film ignores an elephant in the room. After the shot, Jackie Kennedy leans out over the back of the limousine to collect some of his brain or skull tissue. A Dallas motorcycle officer behind the limo is also splattered with brain tissue. These two facts indicate at least one shot hitting JFK’s head came from the front, not the back. As corroborating evidence of a cover-up, the limo was immediately sponged off as it sat parked outside of Parkland Hospital in Dallas, which is a clearly destruction of evidence at a crime scene.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.