CIA chief told RFK about two shooters in Dallas

RFK and John McCone
Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and CIA Director John McCone (photo credit: CIA)

Why did Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believe that his brother President John F. Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy, as his son recently said?

Did RFK have any evidence for his belief, asked several readers who had seen the widespread coverage of RFK Jr.’s comments

It turns out RFK had it on good authority that two people were involved.

RFK’s belief was based on conversations with the Director of Central Intelligence, John McCone, who had been briefed by analysts at the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) after they reviewed a home movie of JFK being struck by gunfire.

This little-known story comes from two credible sources: Dino Brugioni, retired chief of the CIA’s photographic analysis offices, and historian Arthur Schlesinger.

The CIA views the Zapruder film

The film, of course, came from the camera of dressmaker Abraham Zapruder as he watched the presidential motorcade in Dallas in which President Kennedy was struck by gunfire on November 22, 1963. Zapruder had the film developed and gave a copy to the Secret Service. That night one copy of Zapruder’s film was hand-delivered to the Grand Prairie Naval Air Station in southwest Dallas. A jet pilot flew the film to Washington D.C. where it was viewed by FBI and Secret Service officials.

At around 10 p.m. on the night of November 23, two Secret Service agents delivered a copy of Zapruder’s film to the new state-of-the-art NPIC facility where Brugioni was working as duty officer.

In an extended interview, conducted in 200X, Brugioni told Doug Horne, a former chief of military records for the JFK Assassination Records Review Board, what happened next:

Brugioni’s team analyzed the film and made still enlargements of select individual frames that were mounted on briefing boards. They worked on the film throughout the night. On early Sunday morning, November 24, Art Lundahl, the director of the NPIC, took the briefing boards to CIA headquarters in Langley. Lundahl was Brugioni’s mentor. He  won the confidence of the Kennedy White House with the CIA’s rapid analysis of aerial surveillance photos of Soviet missile installations in Cuba in October 1962.

According to Brugioni, Lundahl went to the office of CIA Director John McCone, taking along briefing notes Brugioni had prepared for him. Lundal briefed McCone on the CIA’s analysis of the blown-up frames of the Zapruder film. He returned to NPIC later Sunday morning, November 24, and thanked everyone for their efforts the previous night, telling them that the briefing of McCone had gone well.

What Lundahl told McCone in the briefing is unknown but Lundahl’s sources are not. He relied on the NPIC analysis of the original Zapruder film and the reports of the Secret Service agents who witnessed the assassination.

McCone and RFK

McCone had already spoken once with Attorney General Robert Kennedy about his brother’s assassination. RFK had called McCone to come talk to him at his home in McLean, Virginia, on the afternoon of November 22 to ask him about his brother’s murder. McCone was surprised when RFK asked him if the CIA was involved.

Because McCone was not a career CIA man, RFK trusted him more than anybody else at the agency. McCone assured him agency personnel were not involved.

At some point in the next two weeks McCone gave RFK a more informed view.

On December 9, 1963, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., adviser to President Kennedy, met with RFK and asked him what he thought about his brother’s assassination. As Schlesinger wrote in his diary, published in 2007:

“I asked him, perhaps tactlessly about Oswald. He said there could be no serious doubt that he was guilty, but there still was argument whether he did it by himself or as a part of a larger plot, whether organized by Castro or by gangsters. He said the FBI people thought he had done it by himself, but that McCone thought there were two people involved in the shooting.” [Emphasis added] (Journals 1952-2000, p. 184).

John McCone was not just speculating. His had been briefed by the CIA’s leading photo analyst and seen the NPIC blowups of frames of the Zapruder film.

In short, RFK’s belief in that more than one person was involved in the assassination of JFK was based on the best information available to the U.S. government at the time.

Editor’s Note:

Q. What does this story have to do with the theory that the Zapruder film was altered?

A. It is a separate but related. Doug Horne believes the Zapruder film was altered by someone after Brugioni’s team analyzed it. Before you scoff, you should know Brugioni lends credence to this theory. He says the film he viewed at NPIC on the night of November 23 was different from the famous Zapruder film that is available to today. In any case, Brugioni had no doubt he saw a camera original copy and used its imagery to brief McCone. Horne believes that Brugioni is correct.

So the alteration theory should not be dismissed out of hand. JFK Facts will deal it in a separate post.

Fact check: Were RFK Jr.’s remarks about JFK evidence factually accurate?



56 thoughts on “CIA chief told RFK about two shooters in Dallas”

  1. It’s now August of 2015 and we still have heard nothing from the
    “Hollywood Experts”. I sure would like to see an example of
    an optically altered Kodachrome 8mm film that could pass
    muster as a camera original but nobody has produced one
    even with years to do it. This whole argument smacks of the
    “Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings” scenario.

  2. I just wonder; has anyone ever thought that it could have been a plot involving Soviet leaders, Castro, the US Mafia, other political leaders from the GOP and the other party? I have always…and still think it was a Coup. The Warren Report was so stupid and long to read…that nobaody really analyzed it. People in government swore that the “Real Truth” would be published in 50 years…..or (1993)..Nothing has been ever published. All those who had some kindo of element to explain the assassination were either murdered or perished in “strange” circumstances. No one ever speaks about Kennedy’s background and how he got elected. The Vallachi papers came out right after JFK’s assassination and after the “Cuban Missle Crisis”…Oh..Come on!

  3. To explain HOW the film was altered is a technical question requiring knowledge of what the CIA were capable of at the time, information that is unavailable. For an untrained person to assess the technical data requires confidence in the analysts (Hard to achieve if you’re challenging a Government agency).

    An untrained person can confidently state the film WAS altered, by studying the Parkland testimony and some of the corroborating Bethesda Testimony. It is disturbing that the extant film appears to show a strange black patch on the rear of JFK’s head, easy to dismiss as an oddity of the film WITHOUT the witness testimony, but a lot more difficult to ignore WITH it.

  4. there doesnt seem to have been opportunity for Z-film to have been altered at least by Wrone account. can someone who believes in the Z-film alternation provide a timeline of when this would have happened. this seems like a rabbit hole to me….

    1. You and me. Rolling Stones 69′(?), Sympathy for the Devil.
      Maybe Lucien Sarti and Bill Harvey (with a pistol of course).
      Several names have been mentioned over the years. Nicoletti by confessed assassin Files, Tippit, Factor, Wallace, Morales….
      The names may never be known, the speculation could continue forever.
      This does not detract from the fact that at least two or more shooters fired.

  5. Bob,

    Have you studied the Z-film and the other related photographic records closely?

    Have you compared the Nix and Z-films, as phd discusses?

    Are you aware of the capabilities of the Kodak-CIA Hawkeyeworks facility in 1963?

    Have you read Doug Horne’s account of the two NPIC events on the weekend of the assassination?

    Are you aware Dino Brugioni squarely disputes the extant Z-film?

  6. If such complex alteration of an 8mm film was possible in 1963 why has nobody been able to duplicate it since using the same techniques and equipment? That would seem to be the only way to
    make the case believable.
    Major problems are the enlargement of 8mm to 35mm without significant image loss,
    production of multiple registration prints in a matter of hours, availability of multiple rotoscope cameras and artists to work with them, filming of multiple exposure tests, color tests,
    split exposure tests, cross wedges, animation tests, etc. in a matter of a few hours,
    drawing up the exposure sheets which is necessary to coordinate the work of multiple technicians. It can’t be done over night but none of this ever addressed by film alteration proponents.
    Also there is the matter of the multiple reflections on the surface of the car which would have to be totally recreated to match the change in timing to remove the supposed car stop. That step alone would take days if it could be done at all without obvious flaws. These reflections would have to be recreated for the entire film since the reposing of the car changes the timing of the background action so simply altering a few frames doesn’t work.
    Then it all has to be reduced back to 8mm without image loss. I have not ever seen this done
    even today so I don’t see how it could have been done 50 years ago.

  7. My questions are regarding the Z/Film vs the Nix film; the Nix film clearly shows the limousine slowing, almost to a stop. That is not the case with the Z film. It doesn’t appear as if the car slows at all. Furthermore, there appears to be a drag/blur of the Z film before the final head shot(s), where a portion of the umbrella is seen silhouetted in the tree. Could that have been Zapruder’s reaction to his proximity to those last shots? Finally, Ed Hoffman’s eyewitness testimony/statement, that has been so carefully documented in JFK and the Unspeakable was never, to all sources I could find, introduced other than James Douglass’s definitive tome. Except here:

    1. Gerry Simone

      I was also amazed about the slowing down of the limo which is quite apparent in the Nix film vs. the Z Film.

      Could that (absence of slowdown) be due to those missing Z-frames from Life Magazine’s mishandling of the film prior to publishing?*

      *Not the original or other copies though.

    2. Ed Hoffman saw a lot of things happening-not just the actual shooting. Poor fellow-his disabilities prevented him from being able to communicate it all.

  8. I repeat I did film alteration using optical techniques for 25 years and I had to work
    for weeks to achieve far less complex composites by this method. Exactly how could
    this have been done by the government in a couple of days if the film industry couldn’t do it before the advent of digital technology even with weeks of time and an army or animation artists?
    I knew everyone in Hollywood who had optical printing systems and did this kind of work and none of them could do it in two days so what is everyone basing this theory on?
    I ask again who are the “experts” making these statements? Did they ever actually work on
    a motion picture? How could they find enough animation artists with security clearances who
    be willing to do something like this. They were all Kennedy supporters in Hollywood and would never participate in such a cover-up. Where would they get the skilled manpower?

    1. Watch Doug Horne’s presentation. I have. The back of the head is deep dark black. Inserted. Soon this will be exposed. It’s true. Unspeakable. But true

    2. Hey Bob, and everyone else, I’m sending a link to information about Lookout Mountain Laboratory, which was a top secret place where they filmed, for the government. You needed a top secret clearance to work there. It was located in Laurel Canyon, in the Hollywood Hills, and the government finally started to declassify their work in 1997.

  9. Most here believe JFK was killed by more than one shooter and that the U.S. Government at the highest levels covered up the facts of the crime.

    Why then is it hard to believe the government went to extraordinary lengths to alter the Z-film?

    Dino Brugioni, featured here, was unknown to the ARRB; the ARRB didn’t know about his and his team’s work on the night of November 23-24, 1963. That’s a FACT.

    Dino Brugioni in the past several years has examined the extant Z-film and says it does not depict what he saw in the film he viewed on the night of November 23-24. In particular, he says of Frame 313 (head shot) that in the film he viewed, the explosive ejecta from the head shot flew straight up in a large white (not pink) cloud, over well more than one frame.

    The U.S. Government had the capability of altering the Z-film at its Hawkeyeworks plant in Rochester, New York.

    As to why the government would leave a picture of the head shot, Frame 313, in the altered film, the assumption here and elsewhere is that Frame 313 is conclusive proof of a frontal shot. That is a widespread myth. What Frame 313 depicts is open to debate. Kevin Costner’s Garrison repeats, “Back and to the….” Yet in the frames that follow Frame 313, in which Jackie climbs onto the trunk of the limo, the extant Z- film reveals the surface of the trunk on which Jackie’s crawling to be pristine, clean, and shiny. Not covered with blood and brains, which witnesses observed. So the crew at Hawkeyeworks left in an artefact and erased debris on the trunk.

    No witness ever reported seeing the head snap depicted in the extant Z-film. The head snap is a visual misrepresentation of the strikes to JFK’s body.

  10. We’ve been hearing about the “Hollywood experts” who examined the Zapruder film for nearly five years now but we still don’t know who they are what they discovered. Why all the secrecy?
    I worked as a special effects cameraman from 1970 to 1995 and shot more than a million frames
    of traveling matte effects for movies and television and I would sure like to hear an explanation as to how this was done in a few days with an 8mm film in 1963 considering how difficult
    and time consuming it was even working with pin registered 35mm originals 25 years later
    using the same optical and rotoscoping techniques.

    1. I’m with Bob on this. Why would people go to all the trouble to change the Zapruder film when it contains damning evidence of a frontal head shot in the version that was finally shown to the public?

  11. Homer McMahon testified to the ARRB that he and Ben Hunter worked on an original version of the Z-film. Here is the key part of his testimony:

    “HM: ….When I was four years old, I was taught to shoot tricks. I was one of the greatest trick shot artists. When I was sixteen I used to fire at Perry, at Camp Perry, Ohio, I was in the NRA national championships. I’m talking about target shooting, not tricks. I was what they called a sight shooter. I could hit without aiming. In other words I was a trick shot artist. My dad would hold a dime between his fingers and at fifty foot I could shoot it out (ha ha) with a little trick gun. I’d pump three balls, golf balls and could pump and hit the three of them before they hit the ground. I used to have a rifle range in my basement and I would shoot every day and I became….it was like driving a car and after you’ve done it for so long you’re reflexes do it automatically. I could shoot without looking. I didn’t close one eye and look through a sight. I could actually shoot and hit what I wanted to hit. And I think I could really see the bullets hitting the object, and their trajectory, I could see the path of the bullet, and I could compensate for that if I missed. It was a feedback mechanism. And I was very good at what I did. In fact I’d make money in the money matches with the larger rifles, and I could make four or five hundred dollars in prize money firing, so I was a professional shooter, and yes, I could look at the pictures and tell you how many shots and possibly where they came from up, down, right, left, and this is intuition, and I couldn’t explain how I know that.

    DH: What was it, how many shots were there in the assassination? What is your opinion?

    HM: About eight shots.

    DH: Where did they come from?

    HM: From three different directions, at least.”

  12. So the Director of the cia at the time of JFK’s death, even though he was an outsider, with 2 weeks or less investigation concluded 2 people were involved in the shooting. No matter why The Attorney General at the time chose to not act on this it means the Director of the CIA told him it was a Conspiracy, 2 people involved = that.
    Further the Brugioni enlargements “mounted on billboards” by the top CIA video expert of the time should be still in evidence.
    I’ve never heard of them. Where are they. They belong to us.
    Are they in the 1100 files still being withheld?

  13. What you are implying is that RFK knowingly obstructed the investigation of the murder of his own brother.
    I find little if any credible evidence that RFK did not believe that Oswald was the lone assassin on Nov, 22. I think that he and others with knowledge of the attempts to kill Castro had to have suspicions that Castro might retaliate, as Castro threatened to do.
    A loose cannon like Oswald could have been a perfect tool- no real connection with Cuban intelligence or Castro aside from admiration from afar. Any overt attempt by Castro on JFK would have lead to an invasion.
    Why wpuld the two people closest to JFK publically support the findings of the Warren Commission and treat conspiracy theories with disdain? Why did Jackie Kennedy call the conspiracy movement “sludge”? “What Lundahl told McCone in the briefing is unknown”- but then you imply that you KNOW what Lundahl told McCone and therefore McCone told RFK that there were two shooters. The fact is that we don’t even know when the second McCone meeting took place nor if RFK even correctly interpreted what McCone said. Is there any independent evidence that McCone ever held the view of two shooters or even a conspiracy of two?
    If you have ever seen an original copy of the Zapruder film you will recognize that it IS different from most copies seen in the public arena. It is brighter,more washed out and tinted differently than the enhanced copies on YouTube,etc. Home movie film at the time was different from emulsions used today or even in the last 10 years.

    1. “Any overt attempt by Castro on JFK would have lead to an invasion.”

      Which is why it’s improbable that Castro was involved with Oswald. Neither the KGB, nor the Cubans would hire an assassin who could so easily be linked to them.

      As for RFK, privately he suspected rogue CIA agents and organized crime were involved with his brother’s murder.

      1. Or perhaps CIA and the mob were linked together? Is this one of the “dirty little secrets” that no American dare talks about? I would imagine that some of the Cuban anti-Castro activities had mob ties, as did the Jack Ruby Oswald hit. The CIA may deny this, but are we REALLY supposed to take their word at face value? I’ve heard of gullibility before, but really…

    2. RFK had to maintain his political viability in the Democratic party if he wanted to get back in the White House someday. He couldn’t do that by publicly embracing the Warren Commission critics. The mainstream media and the D.C. establishment would have torn him to pieces.

      1. photon is either in the dark or selectively picking “factoids” from the Kennedy camp while ignoring statements from RFK and others in the kennedy camp suggesting private doubts. Does Photon think RFK Jr was not telling truth?

        Plenty of good reasons why to maintain public support of WC–at the very least to protect the kids. If we shared his public doubts, it would have derailed his political career and the only way to find the truth would have been if he became president so he could control the investigation

  14. Nathaniel Heidenheimer

    I think the number of Americans who actually learned about this RFK jr statement was actually very, very small.

    I was a one and done story on a friday night with no follow ups.

    Many of the stories omitted the “rogue CIA” comment in favor or a narrative about JFK inquiring as to the health of RFK Jr.’s frogs.

    It was a huge story that was ash trayed (i.e. shown on friday night with no follow up stories).

    1. Totally. I have to find some materials on the influences running through our various media to find out how these inconvenient stories get minimized so consistently.

  15. This particular information regarding RFK’s inquiry into JFK’s murder is not a revolutionary disclosure. What is perplexing is why this information was not made available to the Warren Commission or news media by Robert Kennedy, to countermand the false premise that LHO was the sole assassin without co-conspirators. Instead, RFK let the two people (Johnson and Hoover) commandeer the direction and course of the investigation. As Attorney General, it was within RFK’s purview to authorize an investigation. Instead, what the record shows is that Katzenbach fully cooperated with Johnson and Hoover to “convince the public that Oswald was the assassin.”

    1. Hmmm….Did you ever think about blackmail? Specifically, Robert Kennedy’s many dalliances with other women, now held over his head, in case he decided to let’s say, have any kind of political future in which he would run for office? Publicly RFK supported the Warren Commission findings, but privately he had serious reservations, and wanted to look into the matter of his brother’s assassination when he had the power to do so.

      1. The greater risk to RFK in 1963 would have been if his role in the Castro assassination attempts became public. It would not have been beneficial to a “restoration” to the presidency and likely fatal to his budding political career if that came out. Once he got over his grief, i could see calculating to put roadblocks to any investigation that could go down the wrong paths until he became president and could control the investigation

  16. One other note about RFK’s beliefs. We often notice that the Kennedys, LBJ, and others in power at that time, even when they suspected conspiracy, assumed that Oswald was in the sixth floor window and took the shots. We have to remember what information they had at that point, and what info they didn’t have. The FBI provided what seemed to be a rifle tied to Oswald, a neatly matching bullet, and apparent evidence of a second murder of Tippit. The paint would chip off all this “evidence” in time, suppressed testimony about LHO’s movements would come to light, and it would become clear that not only were there two shooters–neither could have been Oswald.

  17. Brugioni had no doubt he saw a camera original copy and used its imagery to brief McCone. Horne believes that Brugioni is correct.

    But did the CIA actually have the camera original? David Wrone (who wrote the book on the Z film) doesn’t buy all this stuff.

  18. What Lundahl told McCone in the briefing is unknown but Lundahl’s sources are not. He relied on the NPIC analysis of the original Zapruder film and the reports of the Secret Service agents who witnessed the assassination.

    In other words, sources that we have now. So why should we care much about what this fellow concluded from these sources when we can look at them and draw our own conclusions?

  19. Dino Brugioni and team worked with the Z-film version flown from Dallas. The team began its work on the night of November 23. That’s what this post says; that’s what the historical record establishes.

    The historical record also establishes that a completely separate team under the leadership of Homer McMahon received from “Agent Bill Smith” on November 24 a version of the Z-film that had come straight from Hawkeyeworks. McMahon’s team made briefing boards from this film, which has become the extant Z-film.

    Doug Horne has pieced all this together meticulously.

    BILL KELLY asks, why if the extant Z-film is forged would the forgers leave evidence of a frontal head shot? ANSWER: The camera original film showed things the government desperately did not want the public ever to see. In particular, multiple hits on JFK inconsistent with the Oswald-did-it-alone story; and also the limo stop or near stop.

    IMO, the forgers left clear indicators of their fabrication.

  20. RFK immediately called CIA McCone on 11/22/63, asked him to come over to his house, and asked him did our guys kill JFK (meaning CIA operatives and associates).

    Then in December, 1963 RFK and Jackie sent William Walton with a message to the Russians: the murder of JFK was a domestic conspiracy and the pick of LBJ as VP had been a huge mistake.

    And there is this nugget:

    Arthur Schlesinger:

    “We tried to perpetuate the myth by convincing ourselves that we were good and that LBJ was evil. I remember one time Bobby telling me he was convinced that Lyndon was behind his brother’s death. ‘Come on Bob. Get real.’ I said. His other theory had it that Richard Nixon and Howard Hughes were somehow involved. He hated them both. ‘Nixon’s a true slimebucket,’ he said. ‘And I should have investigated Hughes years ago.'”

    [C. David Heymann, “RFK,” p. 365]

    1. Heymann is a secondary source, and not only has my RA been unable to run down a primary source (Heymann does not have good, precise citations) librarians at New York Public Library, which has Schlesinger’s Journals, can’t find that in the manuscript pages.

      If anybody has a good primary source citation on that, I would love to see it.

      The quote is plausible enough, since Bobby was distraught, and was casting around for people who might be to blame.

  21. I agree Bill Pierce, that if they were to tamper with the Z-film they would not have left in the evidence of a shot from the front or that it indicates there were two shooters because one could not get off the sequence of shots in the timing the Z-film indicates. The NPIC did not have the equipment to alter the film, but there are indications the Z-film spent some time at KODAK’s top secret photo shop in Rochester NY where the U2 and satellite photos were developed. As for the delay in gettng proof of Soviet missiles in Cuba, they didn’t fly the U2 every day, and JFK refused to believe the human intelligence HUMIT from anti-Castro sources because they were biased. Lundal and NPIC provided the independent proof that didn’t rely on human bias.

  22. Any objective viewing of the Z film leads to the two shooter conclusion. (At least two shooters.) That’s why the government and media refused to show the film for more than a decade. There’s no need for expert interpretation. The Z film is authentic. Otherwise the manipulators would have had to collect all other copies and destroy them. Is there any evidence to support this? While I’m open to anything including film alteration, this seems like a real stretch. Fetzer isn’t convincing.

    The film alteration theory always begs the question: why did the forgers retain the frames that indicate gunfire from the front – Kennedy’s hands-to-the-throat reaction to his throat wound and the fatal headshot that slammed JFK backwards?

    And another comment based on this quote:

    “Lundahl was Brugioni’s mentor who had won the confidence of the White House with the CIA’s rapid analysis of aerial surveillance photos of Soviet missile installations in Cuba in October 1962.”

    I haven’t pursued detailed research of this topic, but it has always seemed to me that the CIA waited until the missiles had been offloaded and the installations almost complete before they informed Kennedy. I suspect the CIA would have known about the missiles when they were shipped, and I suspect that U-2s would have photographed the missiles during the early stages of offloading, warehousing and transportation. This looks like another attempt to force JFK to make a command decision with his back against the wall. Am I being too hard on the CIA?

    1. The bogus lead that Gaeton Fonzi followed up on in South Florida, who claimed to have seen Oswald & Ruby on the tarmac at the Miami airport, later took Fonzi to show him his photographic equipment he had stored away. It included a housing for an arial photographic camera. The man shared with Fonzi that he had taken arial photographs of the missiles in Cuba long before Kennedy was ever officially told about them.

      1. I’ve heard Fonzi say that, and I don’t doubt that some Cuban expatriate told him that.

        But it’s really implausible that the CIA, which had the U-2, would farm out serious photo intelligence to some oddball with a small plane.

        1. Yes, that’s every bit as crazy as the idea that the CIA would outsource the murder of Castro to the Mafia. I mean, what need do you have of that when such level headed people as E. Howard Hunt and Frank Fiorini/Sturges are available?

          1. I think the Oswald at MIami airport was further researched and dismissed. forgot who did the additional legwork. one complication was a flood that destroyed some records,,,,

      2. Interesting post but he has one important fact wrong. The supposed sighting was at the Key West airport (my adopted home town) and the man who reported the story to Sen Schweiker was George Firaldo, the manager in 1963and before of the Key West Airport. Fonzi covers the story in his chapter “Searching for Ghosts in Key West.” We (Mark Howell and I) interviewed Firaldo’s widow for a story we wrote for the Key West Citizen. She stated that he affirmed the story even on his death bed.
        If anyone is interested and writes me at I will send them a copy of our story.

    2. In fairness to Doug Horne, he presents a much more limited, and therefore plausible, account of possible alteration. He posits that frames were painted/airbrushed to conceal a wound in the back of Kennedy’s head and the full spread of tissue from the 312/313 head shot.

      The reason for such a limited alteration, which would nonetheless NOT conceal the telling head snap, would have been based on the assumption that the public would never view the film, and that even the Warren Commission would only examine stills.

      I await the promised “25-30 Hollywood experts” promised by Horne to reveal themselves and their analysis before taking this premise seriously. But it is a far cry from Fetzerism.

      1. Just to disagree slightly, there is a difference between disappearance and modification. In my mind, disappearance seems easier and, with no context, more plausible. Modifying, requires a modifier, it creates its own evidence, and, if there are multiple copies requires synchronization or leaves an obvious clue. Its messy and complicated, therefore less plausible.

        I don’t know how far Fetzer goes, but there is a difference between a ZFrame being lost, and a ZFrame being modified. Horne’s airbush theory is complex.

        1. Not sure what “disappearance” has to do with it? The theories discussed, Fetzer’s and Horne’s, both involve modification. And I agree that any modification would be a complex process with inevitable footprints. My only point was that Horne’s theory is less complex and has fewer hurdles to surmount for plausibility than Fetzer’s.

      2. I think that Horne was absolutely correct about the alterations made to the film. If I am understanding him correctly, the alterations that were done, were good for that period of time, and for the amount of time they had to alter the film. In other words, they couldn’t portray something very complicated, like making his body appear to fly forward. They didn’t have the time or technology to do that but they were able to mask the huge head wound and brain matter flying from the back of his head.

        As far as the 25-30 Hollywood experts goes, perhaps he spoke too soon. I imagine that’s not his fault as they could have been persuaded not to do so. Look at how many spooks hang out at this site.

  23. The McCone comment about 2 shooters is also in Arthur Schlesinger’s “Robert Kennedy and His Times,” (1978) on p. 616.

    As for the Zapruder film being altered … I don’t believe it and neither does Robert Groden, the world’s expert on the film and photography of the JFK assassination. A few frames were later removed from the Z-film, but that is about all that was done.

    Dino Brugioni has some key insights on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the massive pressures that JFK was under. Dino Brugioni: “Everyone was against JFK’s position- the governors, the Congress, the military – they were all unbelievably angry at JFK for not going to war. JFK was alone in his position. My boss, Lundahl, was shocked at the verbal beating JFK was taking at those meetings.” (Dino Brugioni, 10-27-12)

    1. R. Andrew KIel

      With all due respect to Robert Groden – while in Dallas (2013) & Pittsburgh (2003) I have personally shown him still frames of the Zapruder film (fatal head shot) & asked him how the front of JFK’s face could be gone – you see Jackie’s pink jacket where his face should be & he has no plausible answer for that frame. Look at the still frames yourself & explain how that is possible.

      Jeffery Sundberg Pittsburgh(2013)documented that the extant (18 inches wide) film was filmed with a wider view than was possible from Zapruder’s camera (13 inches) – the film could not contain the outside sprockets shown in the extant film according to Sundberg’s research.

      No one can dispute the documented statements of over 50 witnesses who stated the president’s car came to a stop during the shooting – but this is not seen in the extant film.

      According to Zapruder’s own statement to the FBI on 12/4/63 – he started filming as the motorcade turned from Houston onto Elm & “the control buttons for the zoom lens were not touched once he started taking photographs of the Presidential motorcade” …(he) “continued taking pictures until the motorcade disappeared to his right”. That is clearly not what the extant film shows – it shows the lead motorcycles turning from Houston onto Elm & then the film stops & then the president’s car appears out of nowhere halfway down Elm.

      Robert Groden has done some great work – but he is going to be proven wrong in regards to the authenticity of the Zapruder film – there is no better documentation of what the “original” Zapruder film looked like but Dino Brugioni. He studied the original the weekend of 11/22-24/63 & prepared briefing boards & still frames of the film. Brugioni is on record as stating that the extant film is not what he saw in 1963 – Groden v Brugioni – no contest!

Leave a Comment

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

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

Scroll to Top