Max Holland rewinds the Zapruder film

In a recent presentation at New York’s Hunter College, independent scholar Max argued the Zapruder film is not only the most famous, but also the most misunderstood, piece of evidence about the John F. Kennedy assassination.Holland has given this talk before, at the Sixth Floor Museum, among other places.

He argues, correctly, that one should not assume all the shots fired at President Kennedy on November 22, 1963 were fired while Abraham Zapruder was filming the presidential motorcade. The problem with his claim that one shot was fired before Zapruder started filming is that virtually no witness testimony supports it and the gunman would have been firing into tree branches. Why would an assassin do that?

Correct me if I’m wrong.

98 thoughts on “Max Holland rewinds the Zapruder film”

  1. There was a shot before the filming started, the assassin does not shot into branches. One of the three cartridges was found to the far right, facing out the assassin’ 6th floor window. Apparently, a shot was taken right after the turn onto Elm. Reactions from the running girl and this in the car highly suggest this. There was a stop light at that turn. It is thought the shot hit the arm or stoplights. I don’t have link handy, but find the secret service or FBI reenactment. There is visible damage on the stop light as if it was hit. This is discussed in detail.

  2. Jeff,

    The tree, signal-light or the Stemmons sign may have been obstructions from the perspective of the alleged sniper’s nest, but not so from other locations.

    However, those matters are behind a different door.

    I have a very difficult time with many of Mr. Holland’s positions given his relationship to or with CIA.

    His whitewashing of the entire Clay Shaw-CMC-Permindex-Gladio-CIA affair is typical of someone with an agenda in my book….YMMV…

  3. “…hmm! I had written a very long, drawn out hypothesis, etc. about shots fired… the president…causes of…why the..
    I’d like to point out on this forum, that the President sustained a wound that resulted in his jaw being displaced at the mandible; and that this is evident in the extant version of the Z film, as well as in post mort. photographic evidence as well.
    Please; look at the Z film; both in motion and frame by frame. Does the Presidents jaw look to be abnormally large on the right side almost immediately after passing the freeway sign?
    Also: look at the Autopsy photos; especially the JFKBOH.gif views. Does anyone see that the Presidents jaw has been dislodged on the right side at the mandible? Could this be indicative of a low trajectory, small caliber, shot from the rear? Could this have been a possible attempt for what is known as a, “no reflex kill?”
    The fact that the presidents jaw became dislodged early on might very well prove to be important because it could be the result of a small caliber, low trajectory head shot very early on that has gone undetected!
    Or? Who knows? Any Ideas? Does the pres. jaw appear dislodged? Could it have become detached from the mandible? what might be some other cause?
    How about some other opinions”-DM

  4. I just received this, and would like to place it on the public record. The 2nd. group is in bold font.

    From: Gene Morris
    Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:22:55 -0500
    Subject: RE: Autopsy material, high quality copies of the X-rays

    Mr. Herrera:

    This is in response to your December 2, 2015 request for information about the records of the JFK Assassination Collection, Specifically, you are seeking copies of JFK’s autopsy records and the associated X-rays.

    The autopsy photographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were donated to the National Archives by the Kennedy family by an agreement dated October 29, 1966. This agreement limits access to such materials to: (1) persons authorized to act for a Committee of Congress, a Presidential Commission, or any other official agency of the Federal government having authority to investigate matters relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and to (2) recognized experts in the field of pathology or related areas of science and technology whose applications are approved by the Kennedy family representative, Mr.Paul Kirk.

    Paul Kirk’s address:
    Paul Kirk
    PO Box 1433
    Marstons Mills, MA 02648

    The JFK Assassination Collection does not contain pre-mortem X-rays of President Kennedy.

    1. [For the record]

      The wonderful news is that (apparently! hopefully!) NARA does not object to the release of the most faithful copies possible. If so: is that derived from a policy change? I will post evidence of 3 doctors complaining (two recently) that the originals are in PERFECT shape (minus normal wear and tear) but they could only get inferior copies out of the building.

      From: Gene Morris
      To: Ramon F Herrera
      Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:11:19 -0500
      Subject: Re: Autopsy material, high quality copies of the X-rays

      Mr. Herrera:

      Once you have Mr, Kirk’s approval to proceed, we might have to approve the use of the device beforehand, as I’m not sure it’s currently approved. Dealing with the photos and other (that’s a technical function outside my normal duties) but I believe it would be possible to make high quality, digital copies, should the request be approved.

      Gene Morris
      Archives II Textual Reference Branch (RDT2)

    2. Can you post evidence from THREE board-certified Diagnostic Radiologists specifics related to the original films or copies?
      Much of the nonsense spouted about the x-rays comes from 1) Dr. Mantik, who despite false claims from the likes of Greg Burnham and others is NOT a Diagnostic Radiologist and has no particular expertise in evaluating x-ray densitometry measurements and had to resort to paying a journal to get his results published and 2) Dr. Chesser, a neurologist with no particular expertise in evaluating x-rays whose website claimed that he recently took a 3 year sabbatical from clinical medicine for research in neuromuscular disease-nothing about radiology training.
      Again, do you have a Diagnostic Radiologist involved with your planned study?

      1. And by the way Raymon, Joseph Riley isn’t even an M.D. And as such probably doesn’t know how to interpret x-rays any better than you do.

        1. Photon: This is the question under scrutiny:


          It is a simple yes/no question.

          1. I see that you have entered into discussion with Randy Robertson, who is a board-certified Radiologist. Unfortunately he claimed to see two holes in the back of JFK’s skull that have never been seen by any other radiologist who has reviewed the film. His attempt to get his scenario published in “Radiology” was rejected for that inaccuracy and multiple other conclusions he came to that were contradicted by the actual radiographs.Much of the support for his theory of the wounding came from his analysis of the Zapruder film, not the X-rays themselves. He ultimately published his data not in a respected Radiology journal, but in a trade journal for x-ray technicians! After that when he couldn’t any reputable Radiologist to confirm his views he tried something completely different-synching the HSCA four shot sequence to the Zapruder film. Why anyone would think that a radiologist would have expertise in that is beyond me-although CTers accept an insect scientist as an expert in acoustics.
            Why don’t you ask the Kennedy family guardian of the JFK materials what can and cannot be taken out of the Archives? You DO realize that the restrictions on that material were set by the family of JFK, don’t you?

  5. Here is what Hill said:
    “Why did Mrs. Kennedy come up in the back of the car? Because she was trying to gather some of the material that came off the president’s head and was on the back of the car,” Hill said.”
    Some of the autopsy photos were real and some were faked. The Z film that shows Jackie going on the back of the limo to retrieve the brains that came out of JFK’s head was real.

  6. Douglas Horne believes a Secret Autopsy took place at Bethseda at 6:45 pm on 22/11/63 before the start of the Official Autopsy at about 7:45 pm.

    I think it is quite likely this happened, and there are those who came to know how many shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, and from what direction.

    There was no dissection of President Kennedy’s wounds at the Offical Autopsy Kennedy. That is a fact.

    This is all very suspicius behavior in the aftermath of the Assasination.

    Horne names names of people who witnessed the dissection of Kennedy’s wounds before the Official Autopsy.

    This is all related to the Zapruder Film as it is the video evidence of the physical wounds.

    1. MDG,

      Horne is repeating the same BS that David Lifton has put forth in his bogus theory in BEST EVIDENCE. He misinterprets the evidence in every instance in the very same way as Lifton.

      Dr Burkley was with the casket carrying Kennedy’s body all the way from Parkland to Bethesda. This so called “pre-autopsy” is a myth built of rhetorical trickery and misstating the actual evidence. It never happened.

      There is obviously no changing the mind of a true believer once they have been duped and tossed down the rabbit hole. So I will not attempt to convince you, I merely register my disagreement here.

      There is plenty of real evidence to prove the conspiracy to kill Kennedy without falling for this phony BS.

  7. BEHN: Watchman, it has been arranged to helicopter — helicopter the body to Bethesda. Over.

    The body untimately was taken in another hearse not the one Jackie rode in.

    The intention which is important was to spirit the body away for the secret autopsy. My opinion is influenced by the research of Doug Hume on this matter.

    This makes more sense than the Warren Report which is utter nonsense.

    1. MDG,
      You forgot to add the three lines following the one you wrote, they follow here:

      CLIFTON: This is Watchman. Are you sure that the helicopter operation will work? We have a very heavy casket. Over.

      BEHN: According to Witness, yes.

      CLIFTON: This is Watchman. Don’t take a chance on that. Also have a mortuary-type ambulance standby in case the helicopter doesn’t work.
      * * * * * *
      You also say, your “opinion is influenced by the research of Doug Hume on this matter.”

      If you meant to write, Doug Horne that’s too bad, as you seem to be adopting his scurrilous rhetorical style as well; such as blatant cherry picking — especially foolish on a page where the larger dialog was already posted.

      What BS has Horne led you to this time?

      1. Willy:
        Regarding Horne’s research, I don’t want to get involved in critique on this particular thread. If you don’t mind, I’ll skip the details and narrow the focus.

        There’s lots of weirdness regarding the brain/skull evidence, including wildly conflicting and confusing testimony, disappearing evidence, condition issues and so on.

        Although Horne is wrong about the Zapruder film, he proposes other things that are worth careful consideration not categorical dismissal.

        1. “Although Horne is wrong about the Zapruder film, he proposes other things that are worth careful consideration not categorical dismissal.”~Bill Pierce

          That is exactly what a good sheep dipping is all about; giving the appearance of a genuine researcher that has good info, while having another agenda to promote that is critical to upsetting the whole apple cart:
          The Zapruder Film, that catches the whole murder on video. Take that out of action as reliable, and what do we have?

          Jim Fetzer tries the same thing with both the Z-film and the video evidence of 9/11…”it’s all fake!”

          What you have to ask yourself in such circumstances is; what has Horne brought to the table that wasn’t already known?

          And then read how his story about the Z-film parallels Fetzer’s BS. Birds of a feather.

          1. “…Mr. Whitten; are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the flat earth society?”-DM

            No. But I have worked in special effects on close to two dozen major films in Hollywood.

            (With thsmks and excuses to Mr. Kipling and to others.)
            “Most authors steal their worhs, or buy;
            Garth did not write his own Dispensary.”

            When ‘Omer smote ‘is bloomin’ lyre
            ‘E’d seen folks drink on land and sea’
            An’ toasts he thought ‘e might require
            ‘E would ‘ave took – the same as we.

            No matter what you think or guess,
            Keep mum, say nothin’ (do it too) ;
            Just wink an’ drink to our success : –
            ‘Ere’s our good ‘ealth – the same to you !

            You know we’ve stole ; we know you know ;
            But we don’t care one little cuss.
            The second thief’s claim’s better ; so.
            Take what you will – the same as us.

            “…just your mention of working in pictures, considering the subject of “the film,” I find i’m impressed even less with your bonifides Mr. Whitten. With regard to the flat earth society: i’m now convinced you are a card carrying member…”
            …whenever you wish to go down the primrose path of “the film” Mr. Whitten, i’d be happy to go hand-in-hand with you right here on this forum, frame-by-frame…step-by-step ! At your service – DM

  8. I don’t personally agree with Holland’s theory. After reading Jacob Carter’s recent interview with him in “Before History Dies” a few things stand out. “It was not a difficult feat of marksmanship; it was pretty ordinary for an ex-marine with his training”. He barely passed his last test of marksmanship, was known for getting “maggies drawers” (missing)per one of his co-marines, had no known practice since, couldn’t hit a rabbit per his Russian friend hunters in the USSR. “No way it was six or seven seconds. I THINK it was slightly in excess of eleven seconds.” It would have to be to accommodate his early shot hitting the light pole then being deflected a hundred yards to chip the concrete and wound James Tague. Connally; “it’s pretty clear to me Connally wanted his own bullet. He wanted to believe he was a target too. He didn’t want to accept that he was collateral damage”. Asinine. “you have an irregular autopsy, that came to the right conclusions, but through shortcuts”. Also asinine.

  9. Max Holland keeps pushing this dis/misinformation campaign that is so ridicules. In fact during the one hour “JFK The Lost Bullet” on National Geo, while speaking about “home movies” and ” the Zapruder film” Mr Holland states “people would run them in the 60’s in their living rooms and purport that because of the backward head movement that the shot came from the front”. Now how did anyone have home movies of the shooting to look at much less the highly protected Zapruder film. He is so full of baloney he is not worth anything to this investigation, his aim is to fill our heads with non fact garbage IMO.

  10. I will attempt to find that on the AF1 Tapes Willy but it is going to take some time especially at this time of year.

    It seems pretty clear to me that is the intention from what you have transcribed in your last post. What do you think those words mean?

    1. “It seems pretty clear to me that is the intention from what you have transcribed in your last post. What do you think those words mean?”

      Well, as they are the only words to do with the situation, they mean just what they say. They would have a mortuary-type ambulance in case the casket was too heavy and unwieldy. They don’t say ANYTHING ELSE.

      So what finally happened? Burkley is clear in his statement to HSCA, they took a mortuary-type ambulance to deliver the casket to Bethesda, he and Jackie and Robert stayed with the casket. Simple.

  11. Mrs Kennedy testified to a rear headwound. The Parkland Staff Testified to a large rear headwound. Some of the Bethesda staff testified to a large rear headwound. The Autopsy Practitioners admitted to a greater or lesser degree to a large rear headwound. Dr Mantik and others who have examined the autopsy xrays state their is alteration of the rear of the head in them AND………There appears to be a large black blob on the back of Kennedys head in frames of the Zapruder film.

    The allegedley CIA funded Max Holland has an uphill struggle.

    1. “…increase frames z313 and on, up to full screen, or until you begin to loose resolution…the “blacking out” at the rear of the President’s head has been very crudely blacked out…actually very quickly, to be more precise.
      I actually have to give those who doctored the film credit, considering that they had a very short time frame, or window in which to do what they did. Of course, the fact that the redacted film sat in a vault censured from public scrutiny for so many years didn’t hurt any either; but that’s what happens when the State or government allows “privatization” of anything that should be of public domain!
      My guess though is that under high intensity light, or reduction in contrast, shows the actual diameter of the defect in the posterior of the head.
      check it out yourselves at 1Kx magnification!”-DM

    2. Hi Eddy:

      Some of us are involved in a project that attempts to bring 21st. Science and Technological resources to qualified investigators and, ultimately, to the JFK community in general.

      In reference to your comments, you may want to take a look here:

      Official Version:

      Parkland Version:

      Isometric to 3D Projection
      [Click inside “3D Models”]

      A main attribute is this work is being Open Source: if anybody wants to explore other hypotheses, trajectories and effects of the impacts, the source files are widely available …

      … Free as in free beer.
      … Free as in free speech.

      1. As you can see, our objective is to discover and uncover, to set information free.

        That is the opposite of our esteemed counterparts in the LN camp.

        1. Not if your Parkland version is your conception of the truth.
          If you can’t accept the autopsy results which were verified by some of the most prestigious forensic pathologists in the United States ( and contradicted in 50 years by only one notable forensic pathologist-who was a conspiracy theorist) how can any of your assumptions be valid?
          If you start off with incorrect facts your whole exercise ( what ever it might be) is logically pointless. You can’t square a circle.

          1. Photon continues to post nonsense:
            “If you can’t accept the autopsy results which were verified by some of the most prestigious forensic pathologists in the United States . . . ”

            The autopsy results were NOT verified by the forensic pathologists of the Clark Panel and HSCA. Without examining the skull, the esteemed forensic pathologists moved the location of the alleged rear entry head wound by ~4 inches.

            Thus, the so-called cowlick wound – depicted by artist Ida Dox – became the SECOND official rear entry head wound. The wound is crystal clear. I’ve never met anyone who failed to see it immediately.

            Why didn’t the three qualified autopsy doctors see this wound when they had the skull right in front of them for three hours?

          2. Photon:

            How come the only copies of the X-rays released by the National Archives are of low quality?

            Will you join/lead a petition to have high quality, digital copies released?

            I have located a world class research institution in Germany. They are willing and able to project the 2 isometric X-rays on a 3D model.

            Will you attempt to persuade your peers: Prof. McAdams, Posner, etc. to join this initiative?

            This is what we have so far:

            [Enter into “3D Models” subfolders]

            Notice the conspicuous emptiness of the folder “Reconstruction by Researchers and Their Algorithms”. The most accurate 3D model produced by leading edge science and state of the art technology would be placed there.

            Even better: donated to the National Archives.

          3. Digitally enhanced copies were released – see HSCA medical panel report, page 111. But of course amateur radiologists still misinterpret what they show. As far as your world class institute placing the x-rays on a 3-D model you seem to have forgotten that it required the introduction of an entirely new technology in the 1970s to accurately reproduce a 3-D image from x-rays, employing multiple scans, not just an AP and lateral film. After 30 years of attempts to reduce exposure this technique still requires multiple exposures at different levels to create an accurate radiographic representation.If your world-class institution could really reproduce an accurate 3-D representation from only a couple of 50 year-old skull films don’t you think Siemens would be beating down their door to develope it commercially?
            It is quite telling when non-radiologists like Chesser and Mantik get access to the National Archives x-ray material and claim that by using a method of densitometry ( a method that Mantik could only get published in what is termed a “predatory journal”) they can prove that the x-rays are faked. Do you even have a radiologist on your project?

        2. [Photon:]
          “Digitally enhanced copies were released”

          To whom? Where can I get those? I can mention 3 doctors who claim otherwise. All of them have had the originals in their hands.

          Let’s pretend that the technology has progressed in the last decades.

          Will you join/lead a petition to have state of the art, high quality, digital copies released?
          (2nd. request).

          1. [RFH:]

            “I can mention 3 doctors who claim otherwise”

            These are the 3 expert doctors. Two of them have handled the original X-rays and all 3 agree with the basis for my complaint. So far, until 12/2015 high quality, digital copies have NOT been available. Photon is wrong.


            Scroll down and see the surprising response that I received from NARA today. (look for the words “For the record”).

            Could it be that there has been a change of policy? Maybe it is related to the Christmas spirit? Could it be that my nice smile persuaded them? 🙂

            Could it be that the person who fielded my request is in error? That would be a bummer. 🙁

            I believe I know the answer to that.

            The key is to use the secret words.

  12. There is basically no support for Max’s theory. The four eyewitnesses presented in JFK: The Lost Bullet to support his theory–Euins, Donaldson, Pender, and Tague, all thought the first shot was fired when the limo was further down Elm than he proposes.

    While he claims he got Pierce Allman to support his theory, moreover, this is almost certainly a misunderstanding. Allman’s earliest statements reflect that the limo was past him when the first shot rang out, and Holland’s theory has the first shot ring out before it reaches Allman.

  13. It is a fact that we know “the body was choppered over” before the entourage arrived.It’s on the AF1 Tapes.

    Those tapes were just about lost to history but have surfaced in the last few years. It is not a complete record.

    Something so important should have been saved by the government.

    It is really amazing we know as much as know considering the magnitude of the Coverup to this day.

    It is one more example of the sloppy job the W Commssion did when it came to the. truth.

    1. “It is a fact that we know before the entourage arrived.It’s on the AF1 Tapes.”~MDG

      Where on the AF1 Tapes? What exactly do they say? I listened to those tapes, I do not recall hearing, “the body was choppered over”.

      Refresh my memory if you will.

    2. The transcript of the AF-1 audio tapes
      Tape Two — Side One:
      BURKLEY: His body is in a casket, you know, and will have to taken by ambulance and not by chopper.

      BEHN: Alright, I’ll tell Captain Shephard that. Did you say that–
      CLIFTON: Duplex, this is Watchman. I understand that you have arranged for a mortuary type ambulance to take President and Mrs. Kennedy to Bethesda. Is this correct? Over.

      BEHN: Watchman, it has been arranged to helicopter — helicopter the body to Bethesda. Over.

      CLIFTON: This is Watchman. That’s OK, if it isn’t too dark. What about the First Lady? Over.

      BEHN: Everybody else aboard — everybody else aboard arrangements have been made to helicopter into the south grounds.

      CLIFTON: This is Watchman. Are you sure that the helicopter operation will work? We have a very heavy casket. Over.

      BEHN: According to Witness, yes.

      CLIFTON: This is Watchman. Don’t take a chance on that. Also have a mortuary-type ambulance standby in case the helicopter doesn’t work.
      * * * * * * *

      Then we have Burkley’s testimony to HSCA that the body was transported by ambulance to Bethesda.

      So it seems pretty clear from all of this that the body of JFK was taken to Bethesda by mortuary-type ambulance with Burkley, Mrs. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy in attendance.

      1. “…how many years have these recordings been out now? Has it been six or so..just on the internet I mean? I know i listened to them at least three years ago(or more). Does anyone know?”-DM

  14. The secret autopsy has been alleged to have happened at Bethseda. This would not have been a problem for those in charge. It likely happened.

    We know the Military was in charge there.

    JFK was just another dead body at that point.

    Let’s hope President Kennedy did get a real autopsy at Bethseda with wounds dissected.

    He deserved the same as any bum on the street killed by gunfire
    would have got.

    Also we now know Alan Spectre who came up with the SBT was not allowedvto look at the JFK autopsy photos only the drawings.

    Are there any Warren Report Cheerleaders who do not see anything wrong here. Is there any defense for not dissecting the wounds?

  15. The Z Film does not show us all we need to know about the sequence of events.

    Unfortunately, the original Nix Film without any missing frames is missing in action. It is quite likely it would give us more information.

    JFK’s wounds were not dissected. Military wouldnt allow it. This would be needed to prove for all time how many shots & from what direction.

    It is quite possible however the wounds were dissected at a secret autopsy before the Official Autopsy as some have alleged.

    Oswald was arrested within a record amount of time &: was dead by the end of that terrible weekend so none of the evidence was ever going before a jury. Thosebin charge were playing by a different set of rules.

    If there was a shot from the front then you have a conspiracy.
    And a conspiracy to this day. I am sure there are people as we speak sitting on details of the case and they truly believe that is what is best for all concerned.

    1. “It is quite possible however the wounds were dissected at a secret autopsy before the Official Autopsy as some have alleged.”~MDG

      And then they magically mended the cuts resulting in dissection, and sent the body to Bethesda?

    2. Not to be overly critical – I know it’s a free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion – but this is where folks start getting a little too carried away with “theories.” I’ve worked in multimedia for 28 years now. In college, I had to make a class project using 8mm. Let me say that 8mm is a very tiny format and there’s just no way to doctor frames, especially before the digital era.

      I think it’s best to just keep things as simple as possible: Oswald was a low-level gov asset; he was set up to be the patsy; the kill zone was that short 6-second final leg of the route; Oswald was set up to take the fall for Tippit, JFK, and Walker; he was hushed up by Jack Ruby; and the disinformation campaign started in earnest.

      1. Hi DG Michael,

        I too worked with 8mm film doing tabletop animation and other special effects experiments from the time I was about 12 years old. I got my first Bolex 16mm camera around 21 years old.

        I went on to professional special effects work after a period of singing in rock bands in the 60’s up to the 70’s, when I switched over to special effects cinema.

        I have had Raymond Fielding’s book, ‘Techniques of Special Effects of Cinematography’ since 1965, and have read it cover to cover countless times.

        As this topic is second nature to me, I can get very frustrated with people who won’t even try to get a grasp on the real issues involved with the Zapruder film.

        I invite you to visit the page on my blog concerning this topic:

        1. Nice job on your write-up. It is frustrating how some of the very far out researchers resort to – for lack of a better word – silly theories. More than anything we really should just be thankful we were able to see the Z film after 12 years of it being under lock and key by Life/the government. I think it’s the definite record of what happened. Can you imagine if we *didn’t* have it…what would we have?

          But it just irritates me how people keep coming up with more and more outlandish theories – the Z film was altered/excised; the Nix/Muchmore film, too; the Altgens photos; and so on. I honestly think they do it to be able to say they’ve discovered something “new” – and to try to make a buck or three to boot.

          1. “…I hate to “rain on your parade,” but quite frankly…they are? Like you, ever since 1975, I thought that the Z film was just about the only thing that was intact; but not any more!
            Please, I urge you to examine this film; not as a motion picture, but each frame independently; then, tell me what you think. I’m not saying that the “extant” version isn’t good for anything-quite the opposite! It “solidifies” the facts in this case…that our Govt. covered up an domestic coup d’etat! I’m like everyone else; in so far, as I love my country and my heritage; and i want this “thing” to be resolved…without bloodshed and perhaps even another civil war!
            “If” there is anyone-anyone who thinks that the 99% will stand still while the 1% run roughshod over them, I fear they are wrong…”dead wrong!”-DM

          2. DG Michael,

            I meant to thank you in my comment of
            December 18, 2015 at 12:17 am, but addressed the comment to Mr Mitchill in error. Those words were meant for you not him.

            I have nothing whatsoever to thank Mr Mitchell for — other than some unwelcome aggravation.

        2. Thank you Mr Mitchell,

          It has been a big effort putting together that page, as well as other pages on the JFK Assassination. They are each ongoing projects with often additions, in my continuing comments.

          You summed your comment thus:

          “I honestly think they do it to be able to say they’ve discovered something “new” – and to try to make a buck or three to boot.”

          I agree, but would add there are other motives yet more sinister. I speak of moles, well dipped in sheep musk. In my opinion, I would count James Fetzer, John Costella, David Lifton and Doug Horne as such double agents of cognitive infiltration.

          1. “…i am always open to reason Mr. Whitten, that is why to a great extent, there are many tings that Mr. Lifton, Mr. Fetzer, Mr. Costella and especially Mr. Horne, that I am in agreement with!
            …however, this is an open homicide case and should be examined as such!
            Personally; I don’t think this case will ever be allowed to be solved, only speculated upon. Soon, my generation will all be dead, and the official record will become the historical “fact!”-DM

        3. “…Mr. Whitten, i’m impressed that you bought some books on EFX and such, but you’re supposed to read them, not eat the covers off them!
          How about you get your proverbial “you know what’ together, and tomorrow, you and I will, “walk down this yellow brick road of the Z film together, frame by frame?”-DM

          1. “…honestly, Mr. Whitten: you don’t really think that I wanted to conclude the Z film to be altered? Quite the contrary!
            Now, I am a reasonable man, willing to openly discuss this issue, frame by frame, on what I consider to be one of, if not the best site on the web, with others who are equally open minded to open discussion and debate, and who are educated on these issues!
            What say you sir?”-DM

          2. “Mr. Whitten, i’m impressed that you bought some books on EFX and such, but you’re supposed to read them, not eat the covers off them!” ~DE Mitchell

            Have you ever read Fielding’s book?

            I doubt it, as you have shown you don’t know diddly squat about film, or special effects.
            If you can buy the load of crap Horne is selling, regurgitating his ignorant pap, then there is no reason to discuss this with you.

            Until you educate yourself, at least on the rudimentary level, the conversation would be useless…as useless as it has already been.

            If you want to continue blabbing on about your alteration nonsense, be my guest. But leave me out of it.

  16. “The problem with his claim that one shot was fired before Zapruder started filming is that virtually no witness testimony supports it and the gunman would have been firing into tree branches. Why would an assassin do that?”

    The tree was much further down the street, c.Z161 (scroll down):

    FBI agent Shaneyfelt, the man taking the photo, testified that even under the tree you could still see the car and the President under the foliage, and his photo shows that, I think.

    1. There may have been a shot fired earlier on but not by Oswald, for even if someone tried taking a shot from the alleged sniper’s lair, why would they not even hit the limousine (at least 120 sq. feet) if it was still in view as Shaneyfelt says?

      I reject Holland’s theory since even watching his documentary, the traffic light is not in the way.

      Also, if a high velocity bullet struck that metal, someone if not everyone, would’ve heard a “bing” and maybe noticed the fixture moving or shaking.

    2. Jean – I agree with you. As a matter of fact, I’m working on a video that syncs up the Secret Service reenactment film (shot from the 6th floor) with the Z film. From working on it, there’s very little wiggle room if the shooter was up on the 6th floor to start firing early because of the oak tree blockage.

      Besides, earlier doesn’t mean better. That 6-second kill zone was where it was supposed to have started anyway.

      1. Looking for the Secret Service re-enactment online, I found this video that gives a good view of the sixth floor interior, followed by a motorcade reenactment filmed from the SN window. It shows the car going under the traffic light and then under the tree (the car’s occupants are still plainly visible):

        Please notice what the narrator says about Oswald’s prints on the top box that served as a rifle rest. That box wasn’t moved there from the floor repair area like the larger ones. It came from a different area of the 6th floor, suggesting that Oswald retrieved it and then placed it in the window himself.

  17. 11. As the SS guy said, a “flurry” of shots comes down, the first hitting JFK in the back of the head
    12. Almost immediately, the 2nd knoll shot comes in, slamming him back and to the left
    13. Missed shot hits the curb, spitting up debris and hitting Tague in the cheek
    14. Missed shot slams into the windshield chrome

    There was no doctoring of the footage, no excised frames. There were no shots before #6 above. Why would there be? The car was not in the kill zone yet. The kill zone was perfect – the crowds were thin and all of the triangulation was right in that little 6-second piece of the route. After the thousands that witnessed seeing the parade earlier, with Clint Hill jumping on the back of the car a few times, it was probably a time of relief for the SS in that area, so their guards were lowered ever so slightly.

    The film was probably never meant to be released anyway until Groden got his copy on late-night TV. By since it was released, then it’s simply a disinformation campaign with McAdams, Myers, and and so-called experts saying the “back and to the left” is a jet effect or a nerve thing or whatever.

    If you don’t believe this, watch this very clear version of the film and you’ll see all of the points mentioned above.

    As much as I hate violence I saw one of those horrible ISIS shootings recently. The poor guy took a shot to his head and his body was thrown backward just like JFK did on the knoll shot. There’s been a lot of crazy stuff written about this movie, about it being faked or doctored. It’s the opposite – it tells you everything that happened during those 6 seconds that changed America forever.

    1. DG Michael,

      Just to be clear, Kennedy first reacts to a shot BEFORE the Stemmons Freeway Sign because

      a) he stops waving and begins to look forward (he would’be be rude to other bystanders along the rest of the way)

      b) Jackie also looks at him in a puzzled way (she’s already focusing on him before he emerges from behind the sign – obviously, he’s already been hit)

      c) the HSCA even says a shot was fired just before Z-190 and that JFK reacted to “some severe external stimulus”

      d) JFK emerges from behind the sign with his mouth already open. Medical reflex experts say he was already reacting to a shot.

      It’s also possible that a shot to his throat occurs just before the Stemmons Sign. Here’s a link of an article which you can scroll down to the Altgens photo from the front BEFORE the limo emerges from behind the Stemmons Sign.

      This pic is also annotated (there’s a link below said photo in the article that REALLY ZOOMS IN – you can see JFK already in a motion to seemingly clutch his throat).

      1. I don’t see this at all. He stopped waving to the right and his hand just froze mid-air. Watch footage of the parade before Dealey Plaza. He did this throughout the parade – waving, stopping his wave, looking around, fluffing his hair and so on.

        There’s absolutely nothing in the film that shows me he’s been hit before he goes behind the sign. I do think the umbrella got both of their attention though – they both appear to be staring at it before the shots start (right when he appears from behind the sign). Maybe that’s why Jackie was looking in that direction as well – that umbrella was odd and I’m sure it stood out.

        If he had taken a shot in the throat or back before going behind the sign, he definitely would have reacted like he did when you see him first throw up his arms.

        I’m just not seeing it and it makes more logical sense to me that the shooters wanted the shooting to start right in that 6-second kill zone.

      2. Gerry – one more thing – that Altgens photo shows the shooting much much later than what we’re talking about here. If you note Jackie’s hand clutching his arm, and then look at the Z film, that happened much later than what I’m talking about.

    2. “…perhaps enlargement of the background, so the “missed shots” would no longer be visible within the screens view! ideally, everything that you have just mentioned, is between the sprocket holes! Never meant to be viewed in a motion picture! Also; three/four splices, all made at crucial/critical points of the film. things that would prove beyond any doubt(perhaps)that there were more than a single shooter!
      One can very clearly see the use of multiple film stocks/generations of copied film, edited into the z film; all at the key points! The stemmons freeway sign in one frame is magically…transparent!
      I could go on and on, but it seems useless, because there is a cabal of people, known and unknown to themselves, who for many reasons, refuse to admit or accept film tampering…as though their cases would become any less relevant…! I myself, fail to agree, because i’ve seen another version perhaps, or because i’ve studied this film thousands of times, frame by frame…or both!”-DM

      1. “One can very clearly see the use of multiple film stocks/generations of copied film”~D. E. Mitchell

        You don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

        “The stemmons freeway sign in one frame is magically…transparent!”~Ibid

        Nonsense, this is an illusion caused by the ghost image floating above the image in the frame. You don’t seem to grasp that you are not seeing the “sprocket holes” that are at the edge of the film in these images, you are seeing their image in the frame because of the light leak, as explained by Zavada. See the explanation of the frame DM is speaking to here:

  18. I’ll say one thing about the Z-film – thank goodness Zapruder decided to film that day at the position he did. If he hadn’t, then we would have never really known what happened because eyewitness accounts are often shaky. It’s not as if 100 people in Dealey were standing around thinking to be on alert for an assassination. So this film is the definite record as to what happened that way. After all, why do you think the government (through Life) never showed it until Groden’s copy was shown in 1975?

    The Z-film is really quite simple and tells you all you need to know about the sequence of events.

    1. JFK is fluffing his hair, looking to his left
    2. Some spectators over on his right yell out
    3. He quickly looks that way and waves
    4. Like he did many times that day, after his wave his hand just kind of stops mid-air (I would post some photos of these incidents here but this blog doesn’t allow you to do so)
    5. He and Connally both notice the black umbrella; I wouldn’t be surprised if they were slightly puzzled as to why a big black umbrella is open on a sunny day
    6. Upon re-appearing from behind the sign, the first shot hits him in the throat and he throws up his arms
    7. Almost immediately, the 2nd shot hits him in the back pushing his head slightly backward and then forward
    8. Connally takes his shot and yells out “My god, they’re gonna kill us all”
    9. Connally’s moving around blocks the frontal shot momentarily – that’s why there’s a pause of 3 seconds with no shots
    10. Connally falls backward and/or his wife pulls him down, clearing the line of fire

    [cont below]

    1. “6. Upon re-appearing from behind the sign, the first shot hits him in the throat and he throws up his arms.”~DG Michael

      I disagree here. Kennedy was hit while still behind the sign. Look at the way Jackie has turned to look at him at z224, Kennedy is only partially visible, but both Gov, Connally and Jackie seem to be turning to look at JFK.
      At z231 Connally is still holding his white Stetson.

      The following link has each frame of the Zapruder film as a still:


    2. Total reach. None of the ballistics evidence or the footage from the Zapruder film back up your claim.

      Kennedy and Connolly react to the SECOND shot at the same time. Oswald then takes and extra second to aim and Kennedy is very still at the moment of the head shot. When watching the Zapruder film in slow motion, Kennedy’s head goes forward before being thrust backwards by the explosion in the front of his head.

  19. Arnaldo M. Fernandez

    Holland has gone too far by proposing that the first shot rang out when the presidential limousine was turning onto Elm Street. He put this missed shot 1.4 seconds before Zapruder in a desperate attempt to support the single-assassin hypothesis. Holland is entirely discredited by claiming this very first shot hit a traffic mast and changed so dramatically its direction that it kicked up the concrete and injured the bystander James Tague far way, as it was demonstrated by Pat Speer in his case study on the subject. See

    1. So a gunshot is fired, and nobody reacts to it? A second-and- a-half later Kennedy is waiving his hand at the crowd as if nothing is amiss? Not a stir by any of the Secret Service agents, people taking to ground, staring about in shock? Just a firearm shooting in the vicinity of the President, nothing to worry about.

      This is what Lone Nut Buffs are reduced to. The looniest sort of conspiracy theories is comparatively reasonable.

        1. Holland’s position misstated at the outset
          He says a first shot hit a traffic pipe. Not implausible. I did attend a viewing of a pirated copy of z and it was run back and forth like that repeatedly, in 1971.
          Where he goes wrpng is his total trust in the authenticity of the Z film currently in the National Archives

    2. “…I’m very sorry folks, but the extant version that everyone keeps going on about, to include Mr. Holland, is a “frago,” a fake; a forgery; rather, a composite…not admissible in court due to tampering! I’m very disappointed, but not surprised! Any and everyone who has studied this film on a frame by frame basis, agrees that it has been edited as well as tampered with! I suppose it is like the crop circles…everyone goes on and on about aliens from outer space! Then, two guys drinking Guinness and laughing like hell come out and say that they’d made the circles…then they go on to show everyone how they’d done it! Case closed? Nope! Same people keep going on and on about the Martians or aliens and the UFO’s, etc.
      the version seen today has artifacts that would not exist in an original or copy thereof! There are splices; removed frames; ghosts pics of people between the sprocket holes, among so many other things! But “what if…” what if in 2017, all these docs also turn out to be nothing less than ‘fragos?”
      Who knows? maybe the film that I saw; the one from Jameson…(the one that got away!)might…turn up? Never know? One thing that I do know is there were some very distinguishable differences between these two films; there were some serious differences! Something happened around the limo further up Elm just in front of the TSBD! There were differences with the people…those along the street; both sides of the street! The freeway sign…the grassy area in the middle! there seemed to be more people out in the center too! Hell, I can,t recall everything.only…”-DM

      1. D. E. Mitchell,

        You are certainly free to believe anything you want.

        BUT, take this for example; “ghosts pics of people between the sprocket holes, among so many other things!”

        This is explained in clear detail by Zavada as the result of the claw mechanism that advanced the film and light entering the sprocket holes. But you won’t take the time to read Zavada, thinking it’s all technical stuff over your head.
        It is not – he explains things very clearly. It is not difficult at all to understand. It just takes the small effort to read it.

        But as I said at the beginning here, you can believe what ever you want, despite the fact that many of your points are clearly based on simple misunderstanding of film and special effects.

        1. “…Mr. Whitten, you are a very intelligent man. I enjoy reading your contributions and statements with great interest and regularity! i must disagree with Mr. Zavada on some of his findings, as I am certain everyone does from time to time, regardless! I’ve taken the time to read Mr. Zavada’s findings(which are quite extensive),with much interest; however, not everything between those sprocket holes are contributed from the claw mechanism! The “ghost image” of what appears to be someone on top of the Records building, is not a residual marking from the claw mechanism!
          To be quite frank; i’m (almost) certain that this image was an artifact left behind when this version was composed into a single film, i.e: made in a optical printer! Perhaps Mr. Blevins was correct in that this artifact was captured through AZ’s lense via reflection, Since it is “between the sprocket holes,” it would never be seen on a conventional screen! Perhaps, background enlargement was necessary to “remove” artifacts from view in this regard? there are lamp posts/artifacts on the extant film that are seen some 18 or so frames prior to having even been recorded on the film and such? the capture on film of that sign is a scientific impossibility, unless film stock is capable of de ja vu! It certainly is not from the claw mechanism that’s for certain.
          well…regardless! i’m tired and it’s late!
          I have been very broad with my strokes in regard to both discussions and other things on this site because I have felt that most everyone have all seen the same materials concerning this event; however, in the future, I believe I will start being a little more responsible and provide specifics for others to reference! i think i’ve just been a bit too lazy and such.”-DM

          1. “To be quite frank; i’m (almost) certain that this image was an artifact left behind when this version was composed into a single film, i.e: made in a optical printer!”~D. E. Mitchell

            We have discussed the issue of Kodachrome II film and artificial light at some length here Mr Mitchell. If you still insist that this is possible, that is your own opinion to hold.
            However it simply is not feasible technically.

            You may be able to convince the technically ignorant of such a proposition, but anyone proficient in understanding film stock and the nature of light will dismiss your views immediately.

        2. “…thank you very much Mr. Whitten for doing my thinking for me. Next time i want your opinion i”ll give it to you, how’s that? I’m very sorry to disappoint, but I have read Mr. Zavadas findings…aside from that however, anytime you’d like to walk through the Z film, please feel free; I’d be more than delighted to go hand in hand down the yellow brick road with you each frame of the way! I’ve no problems with intelligent, assertive, discussion and analysis at any level.”-DM

          1. “…Mr Whitten, with all do respect; you are simply incorrect! Almost, if not everything.. can be done!
            Allow me to retort simply for the moment. Everyone is, shall we say, ‘amazed” at the detail of Norman Rockwells paintings/covers on the Post. The intricate details, etc.of Mr. Rockwells canvas was 3.5×5…feet in size! the post put it up on a horizontal camera…essentially a room, some thirty feet long, made into one great big camera, where a photo was taken of the canvas and enlarged! where by a negative was made, along with a print; the pic/painting “enhanced” to improve details, and then photographed again and reduced(increasing the resolution), etc., and plates made to print at the reduced size, etc.
            Hawkeyeworks/JPIC have enlargement(and “other”)capabilities that you probably have no idea of! Their Horizontal camera(s) are beyond the comprehension of most people, even in the printing and photo industries! Their ability to make or take a film (for intelligence purposes), make “someone/anyone” look like they’re “doing something-anything,”” with “someone else” for the sole purpose of “tricking” (an agent perhaps-pure hypothetical) someone(excluding the photo-recon capability side).This is not, and has never been, beyond their capabilities..not then and especially not now!”-DM

  20. There is a significant gap in the Zapruder film as the motorcade turns the corner from Houston to Elm. I have read that the 8 mm camera Zapruder used would show a fade-to-black effect if the camera operator stopped filming, and this effect is not visible on the Z-film, raising a question as to whether the film was edited at this point. Mr. Holland states that Zapruder stopped filming to save film. Anyone have more information on this?

    1. “I have read that the 8 mm camera Zapruder used would show a fade-to-black effect if the camera operator stopped filming..”~Dan

      You are misinformed or have a mistaken recall of the technical aspect of a ‘restart’ after filming a section. The actual result of stopping the camera, is that, the first frame of beginning to film again will be a bit washed out, ie; overexposed:

      “First Frame Over-Exposure:

      “The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as “first-frame-overexposure.” In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.
      Mr. Zapruder’s camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder’s camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll.”~Rolland Zavada

      1. “We note today that there IS a jump cut in the film, well up Elm Street, from scenes of advance motorcyclists to scenes of the JFK limo suddenly appearing out of nowhere. There is NO first-frame overexposure at this abrupt transition, as there should be in any spring-wound camera. The absence of first-frame overexposure, Hollywood experts agree, is an impossibility when one stops and then restarts a spring-wound camera. Therefore, I conclude that the turn from Houston to Elm was optically excised in an optical printer, and that is why there is no first-frame overexposure at this transition.” — Doug Horne

        1. I never thought that that ‘jump’ to the motorcade coming down Elm Street was sinister or suspicious.

          Although more advanced, my dad had a Super 8 movie camera (with snap in Kodak film cartridges) that he bought in the late 1960s if not 1970.

          From my personal experience with it, I noticed when you stop and go, that a scene appears to ‘jump’ into play.

          Perhaps Rollie notices the over-exposure and we amateurs don’t?

          p.s. We still have my late dad’s movie camera and the projector too. It would’ve been more advanced than Zapruder’s.

        2. The limo first appears in; z133, and it is in fact a slight overexposure.

          Compare z133 to z135 & z136 (z134 is too blurred for certainty)

          Check the difference in richness of color between these frames. It may be easier to compare the richness of tone in the woman in the dark blue coat, standing 6th from the left of the sign.

          Also the car that is sideways (maybe 3rd back) the richness in it’s color is a tell between 133 & 136.

          The over exposure is only about one-third of a stop. Perhaps not as dramatic as you may expect when just reading about it.

          * * * * *
          Now add to this Horne’s assertion that HE concludes that “the turn from Houston to Elm was optically excised in an optical printer.”

          As explained before one cannot film Kodachrome II using artificial light without dramatically noticeable shifts in color curve balance and contrast: because ALL projection systems use artificial light!
          An “optical printer” IS a projector system.

          1. Willy,

            Just curious.

            What if only the very slightest changes are made to areas not involving background light?

            Not talking about re-shooting an entire segment or scene as that would be impossible to match with 1963 technology.

            Also, can’t they measure or know what the lux is for daylight and adjust an artificial lamp source to that level of illuminance?

            When Horne says ‘optically excised’, can he simply mean cutting a film segment out, and splicing the two remaining ends together, without re-filming?

          2. “When Horne says ‘optically excised’, can he simply mean cutting a film segment out, and splicing the two remaining ends together”
            ~Gerry Simone

            Do you know how the two ends are “spliced together” Gerry? Simple, scotch-tape. A splice is plainly visible in any film roll.

            “What if only the very slightest changes are made to areas not involving background light?”

            I don’t have any idea of what you are talking about there Gerry. Film is exposed by subjection to light.

            There is no way to create an undetectable forgery of a Kodachrome II film – PERIOD.

            Not in 1963, not in 2015.

          3. “…I believe what Mr Horne means by,”optically excised”(and, be advised, I cannot in any way speak for Mr. Horne), is that the frames had to have been “enhanced,”i.e: enlarged; images removed via air brush, or inserted-“enhanced,” and then reduced. This would be necessary for editing/enhancement, or to increase the resolution of the frame, prior to putting it back into the film as a whole! It is actually more and less complex than that, essentially, the entire film could be taken apart frame by frame, “modified” by frame enlargement(s); items deleted or added…the frames reduced and put back together, re making an composite film…”-DM

        3. “…i have seen a version of the z film that is very different than the redacted version that is seen today. Chief Curry’s vehicle is seen making the turn from main onto Elm, and the camera follows it almost to the sign,; then the film cuts to the presidential limo coming into view on Main and turning onto Elm. there were “many’ differences between the two versions that i can recall…that was more than 40 years ago in La Jolla, CA!”-DM

          1. “i have seen a version of the z film that is very different than the redacted version that is seen today.”~DM

            I have heard this claim made before by a couple of people.

            40 years ago Mitchell? I don’t buy it. I am not saying you are lying, but I am saying you are wrong in your memory.

            Until this alternate Zapruder film shows up, no one is going to convince me of alteration.

            Remember Mitchell, as that YouTube video you posted the link to shows; there are many other films of the motorcade, some showing the turn onto Elm, that you may be confusing with a “version of the Z-film”.

          2. “…Mr Whitten, you have a very good point. You have no idea how much that i’d love to discuss this with you further, but considering all the circumstances, i’m going to have to pass.It was my mistake to have even mentioned the “other” film, and for many reasons that I can’t or won’t mention. However, I will say this: time will tell! In the meanwhile; how about we discuss the “redacted,” or “extant versions?”-DM

        4. Mr. Zapruder does not say anything in his Warren Commission testimony about stopping filming and starting again:

          Mr. ZAPRUDER – That’s correct. I started shooting–when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

          1. Dan,
            Zapruder didn’t mention scratching his balls just before winding his film either…

            Zapruder’s film is evidence of what he shot on film. There are no detectable edits of the extant film. What you see is what Zapruder filmed.
            Live with it.

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