Comparing the Zapruder and Nix films

Nix Film
Cranor’s question: Where is the Zapruder frame equivalent to this Nix frame?

I’ve always been skeptical of the theory Abraham Zapruder’s home movie of JFK’s assassination has been altered. Doug Horne’s groundbreaking interview with CIA photo analyst Dino Brugioni convinced me it was possible the film was altered en route to Washington on the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, but I did not find proof it had been altered.
In this interesting piece for WhoWhatWhy Millicent Cranor addresses the obvious issues: if the Z-film was altered, other photography at the crime scene should contain images not found on the Z-film. Her findings surprised me.

Amateur films by Abraham Zapruder and Orville Nix do not agree with each other in at least one obvious way. James Norwood, a retired professor of Humanities, University of Minnesota, was perhaps the first to point out what seems to be a definitive discrepancy: In the Zapruder film of the assassination, Jackie goes only just beyond the middle of the trunk before retreating.

Cranor asks: Where is the Zapruder film equivalent to this Nix frame see above?

What  do you think? What Z-film frame does this Nix frame capture? Or does it depict something that is not on the Z-film?

Source: JFK Assassination Film: Proof of Tampering? – WhoWhatWhy

24 thoughts on “Comparing the Zapruder and Nix films”

  1. Steve Williams, you say that you can see Zapruder point his camera down in the Nix film?, but Zapruder film doesn’t stray from it’s line of site?, then you say none of the films have been altered?

    1. Gerry Simone

      Is it possible that Zapruder had to lower his movie camera because Elm Street slopes downward towards the overpass?

  2. steven williams

    With all of the “goblygook” and technical jargon about certain “frames” etc., one only has to look very closely at the Nix film. At one point momentarily Zapruder is seen moving his camera down from his line of vision during his filming sequence. He may have been startled by the “head shot” and only wanted to verify what had transpired before continuing filming. I firmly believe that no hoax was involved concerning these films.

  3. Question on the Z film alteration. If I understand correctly, Doug Horne (and Peter Janney?) showed Dino Brugioni Z313 and Dino said the headshot was different on the original film. Was Dino shown the actual extant film and asked to comment or just a single photo? Was Dino interviewed in more depth to describe details of what he remembered seeing on the entire original film (not just the headshot)?

    Similarly, are there other accounts/interviews with anyone that watched the original film on that Saturday morning (Nov 23) that would support film alteration??

    The limousine’s turn onto Elm…debris from the headshot…limo slowing or stopping…what else is believed to be missing/altered?

    Can anyone comment or point me in the right direction to learn more. Thx!

    1. Martin Shackelford

      Dino saw a Secret Service copy of the film, in which the head explosion was whitish instead of reddish. That copy of the film is included in Robert Groden’s dvd “The Assassination Films.”

      1. Martin Shackelford

        The limo’s turn onto Elm isn’t in the film because Zapruder stopped filming until the limo came into his view. Debris from the headshot can be seen in the film. All of the films show the limo slowing–but it didn’t stop. There are four films of the assassination–they are consistent. None were altered.

  4. Randy Robertson claims that you can see Clint Hill in frame Z-329 “in the inter sprocket area just mounting the rear of the limo.” This is conspicuously false.

    As of Z-337, he hasn’t even touched the limo yet, let alone mount it. At Z-338, he finally seems to have grabbed the handhold. This is very easy to verify.

  5. All the alterations of Zapruder film were very primitive and totally unable to hide anything. The whole purpose of all alterations was to add more symbolisms. The whole JFK assassination was a ritual, the alterations were also a ritual. All the frames that were removed from Z film were at the beginning so that the head shot is in frame 313 because the numbers 3 and 13 have a huge significance in their rituals.

    The frame in Nix film does not align with any frame of Zapruder film is because the films are not in synch, on different time frame. One frame is about 50 milliseconds and Jackie’s hand could do a significant movement in 50 milliseconds. Just look how much she can move her hand between two adjacent frames in Zapruder film. All you little JFK researchers lack basic common sense and spread a lot of misinfo with your ignorance. People should study not JFK assassination but the idiots who have been writing nonsensical books and articles about it for 50 years.

  6. Randy Robertson

    For those citing Horne’s interview with Brugioni one might do well to listen carefully when Brugioni says that he counted the number of frames. Anthony M is correct in that the DictaBelt covers the same time frame from the first shot to the last as covered by the Zapruder film. Randy Owen is incorrect that the small possible difference in frame rates would be significant. You would need 10 seconds of continuous filming, almost twice the time it took for all the shots to occur, to see a 2 frame difference. 10X18.3=183 10X18.5=185. If people want to question the authenticity of the Zapruder film and create their own reality or have it dispensed to them by Doug Horne they are more than welcome to do so. I can only hope that they will eventually face the evidence head on and realize that proof of conspiracy is fully present in the films of the assassination.

    1. I fully agree with Randy Robertson. For some reason — perhaps to sell his book, perhaps? — Doug Horne has chosen to ignore the detailed, technical analysis of the Z-film conducted by his former friend, Kodak 8mm film expert Rollie Zavada, in the mid-1990s. Zavada strongly argues that the Z-film has not in any way been altered…

  7. Doug Horne is right imo.

    I’m curious, the Zapruder film indicates no slow down of the limo by the fence. Muchmore film shows the brake lights turn on as they approach the fence and Nix film clearly shows the car slow down so dramatically the motorcycle cops flanking the as car catch the limo and possibly move as far west as the rear bumper as they were caught off guard. It’s pretty dramatic slowdown of the limo when you focus on that car and the motorcycles.

  8. This discussion raises the possibility that CIA had the capability to alter the Z Film.

    They didn’t want us to see Mrs. Kennedy in such a precarious position on the trunk.

    They didn’t want us to see Frame 313 either and we didn’t till the 1970s.

    The CIA perhaps had the capability to further alter the film.

    Bruglioni thought there was more frames showing the awful blood spatter after Frame 313.

    Some have felt frames were excised where Zapruder’s camera stops initially and then motorcade proceeds down Elm. Something looks not right there.

    I don’t think we can discount the idea that the CIA had these capabilities.

  9. Please see specifics below:

    Zapruder film: Jackie only gets as far out on the trunk as seen in frame 375. (1) Her right hand is nearly flat on the trunk; (2) her fingertips are about 10 inches from the driver’s side handhold, gripped by Clint Hill; (3) in two dimensions, her right arm is at a ~45 degree angle with the trunk.

    Nix film: She is further out on the trunk. (1) her hand is off the trunk, and is as high as the driver’s side handhold; (2) her right hand extends all the way to the end of the trunk, as far as Clint Hill’s; (3) her right arm is now parallel to it the trunk.

    1. An excellent article, Ms. Cranor! Since the Comments section for the original WhoWhatWhy article is long since closed, I will attempt to comment here: Like the person who posted the one-word comment at the latter, it appears to me that by the time the key frames appear in the respective videos, Zapruder was significantly farther aft of the limousine than was Nix – and thus the apparent differences *could* be due to parallax.

      As to the informative Carol Hewitt article, “Silencers, Sniper Rifles & the CIA,” she states, “…[m]anipulating the sound of a gun shot can be accomplished in varying degrees through the use of sub-sonic ammunition, suppressors, … and silencers.” Having considerable experience with all of the above, I believe the term “silencer” is but another common – but misleadingly inaccurate – term for a suppressor, rather than a separate category of sound reduction device.

      Regarding the Military Armament Corporation’s chart “muzzle blast spread from a suppressed weapon,” I interpret that to mean that the two black shooters are only deceptively *perceived*, rather than real, shooters – with the single real shooter being the one in the bottom “Area of Certain Location.” Am I reading this wrong?

      In any case, thanks for your superb work – and please keep it up!

  10. Around Z376 I would suggest, or very shortly after that. It’s just an optical effect.

    The evidence strongly supports the Zapruder Film as being accurate and there is a very good correation between it and the acoustical evidence. The physical evidence hangs together very well in the scenario presented by Dr Donald Thomas 2014) in ‘Hear no Evil’.

  11. Michael Murphy

    Anyone who has not viewed Horne’s interview with Leo Brugioni, please take the time and watch. Even at an advanced age Mr. Brugioni is one of the most credible witnesses of this tampering. With age he still possesses clear articulate memories. Like this film much more evidence was destroyed or altered that night to include the limousine evidence.

      1. Martin Shackelford

        It’s DINO Brugioni, and much of the “interview” is Horne interjecting his false interpretations. The film wasn’t altered.

  12. I believe this case was solved by Doug Horne several years ago and to continue to churn these stories over and over again is counterproductive. I have watched his five-hour YouTube account about the autopsy and how the Zapruder film was altered, and his evidence is overwhelming. I have consulted JFKfacts for years to learn new information, but your continued equivocation disappointments me.

  13. Different perspectives can make the same thing seem different. And a typical mistake in comparing the Zapruder and Nix films is, for example, that the 10th frame after the head shot in the Z-film is supposed to match the 10th frame after the head shot in the Nix film (or Muchmore film, as well). Overlooked in such comparisons is the fact the Zapruder film ran at a different speed (18.3 fps) than Nix and/or Muchmore (18.5 fps). It’s a very small difference but it really adds up the further one counts from a similar starting point.

  14. The simple answer is that there is no discrepancy. Both cameras were running continuously and both recorded the same sequence of events. Jackie is seen crawling onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve a portion of skull, the Delta fragment bearing a portion of an exit wound. This had been driven backwards by a second shot to the head from the front. Clint Hill saw this and helped her in retrieving it. There are no frames missing from the Zapruder film. No one adding or subtracting frames to the film on the weekend of the 22nd would have known of the existence and significance of the DPD Dictabelt tape which had fortuitously recorded the sound of the gunfire in Dealey Plaza. The significance of the tape would not become known until 1978. The time span covered and timing of the shots and their impacts are the same down to the hundredths of a second. The synchronization of the film and DictaBelt are mathematically verifiable. I would note that In Horne’s interview Brugioni stated that he had counted the number of frames in the Zapruder film.

    Clint Hill heard the final shot fired from the TSBD. He would have already heard the shots to the head fractions of a second earlier. This is what he is describing and it fits his testimony exquisitely. On frame 329 you can see him in the inter sprocket area just mounting the rear of the limo. On this same frame you will see a flare of reflected light from the windshield due to deformation of the chrome frame from a bullet’s impact one frame earlier at frame 328. This was the metal on metal impact that Hill testified to hearing. The echo he describes is the fact that by his proximity to the impact he heard the impact before he heard the muzzle blast which arrived of about 1/10th of second later. ” Shooting a revolver into a hard object- it seemed to have some type of echo”. Not only did Hill hear this shot but Zapruder did as well. Zapruder would blur his film at frame 331, 1/6th of a second after the bullet’s impact. The shot was fired from the TSBD at 325 to impact at 328 and Zapruder blurred his film at 331, 6 frames later just as he had for the previous shot from the TSBD fired at 221 with an accompanying blur at 227, 6 frames later. If any frames were missing in these intervals none of this would work out with such mathematical precision.

    1. Randy,

      You say Clint Hill is just mounting the rear of the limo in frame 329 sprocket hole? Not so.

      As of frame 332, he still hasn’t mounted the car, but at least he is visible.

      As of 333, he is just about to mount the car, but has not even touched the car yet.

      Readers can confirm this easily at any of the websites that feature individual frames and the sprocket holes.


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