The faking of the Zapruder film and the ‘magic bullet': an interview with Jim Fetzer

JFK and Jackie

By Craig McKee

Josiah “Tink” Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas and a believer that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot that killed John F. Kennedy, says that the key evidence in the assassination is the photographic record, because “it authenticates itself.” 

You know, because you can see it; that means it has to be real. Just like we know that Sam Neill and Laura Dern have almost been eaten by dinosaurs on several occasions.

But wait. Is it possible that sometimes visual evidence is not authentic? Can we question what our own eyes have seen?

Veteran JFK researcher Jim Fetzer, in a Truth and Shadows interview, says this is absolutely what we must do to get to the truth about what happened in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. And he shares this view with a number of prominent researchers who have analyzed the “Zapruder film” and found it to have been altered if not entirely fabricated.

“That means all the years and years of toil based on the presumption that the Zapruder film is a reliable clock for the timing of the sequence of the shots has been largely unproductive, because so much of it has been removed,” he says.

With current advances in imaging and computer technology, the Zapruder film, easily the most compelling, dramatic, and iconic artifact from the assassination, can now be analyzed and scrutinized like never before. And as a result, its authenticity is being questioned like never before.

Fetzer, who has edited three books on the JFK assassination – Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK (1998); Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn’t Know Then (2000); and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (2003) – says the key to figuring out the truth about what happened that day is determining which of the evidence is genuine and which is not.

He says it is clear that the film and other major pieces of photographic evidence, taken as genuine by the Warren Commission and many JFK researchers, were tampered with or faked to hide crucial details and to frame an innocent man.

“When I first came into JFK research in a serious way,” Fetzer says, “I found that there was a super abundance of evidence, but it was completely and hopelessly incoherent. It was contradictory; it was on both sides of every issue.”

He says that he and a number of collaborators who are experts in different fields found that it was necessary to start from the beginning and reconstruct the case “from the ground up.” This meant examining evidence like the autopsy X-rays, photographs, and supporting documents as well as going to the visual record of the assassination itself, the Zapruder film and other Dealey Plaza images.

Examining Zapruder

In 1996, he organized and moderated the first JFK Zapruder Film Symposium in Dallas, which he says was the first time the authenticity of the film had been seriously challenged by a group of experts. He followed that in 2003 with “The Zapruder Film: Is Seeing Believing in the Assassination of JFK?” at the Unversity of Minnesota. This symposium featured presentations by John Costella, Jack White, David Mantik, David Healy, and David Lifton, as well as Fetzer.  (I read Lifton’s essential book Best Evidence when it was first published in 1981. It makes the case that Kennedy’s body was altered after death to hide the fact that shots had come from the front, a conclusion that Fetzer’s research also supports.)

All the conference presentations can be seen on You Tube – and I would recommend them to anyone who wants to really know what happened in Dealey Plaza – and what didn’t happen. (For a 10-minute summary of some of the problems with the Zapruder film that might spark your interest to learn more, check this out:   A visual tutorial on film alteration by Costella is also archived at

The point made clear in the conference and still made by Fetzer today is that the film, allegedly shot by Dallas businessman Abraham Zapruder, was altered to hide the fact that Kennedy’s limousine came to a halt for several seconds after the shooting started before rapidly accelerating and speeding away. More than 60 witnesses, including all four motorcycle escort officers, reported that it slowed dramatically or came to a complete halt.

Fetzer says some have seen a more complete version of the Zapruder film, which he believes is the original. This version, it has been reported, shows the driver, Secret Service agent William Greer, pull to the left once the shooting begins before coming to an abrupt stop. For a full collection of witness accounts, compiled by John Costella, go to

During the stop – which he now believes may have lasted as long as 14-15 seconds – JFK was completely vulnerable as he was hit twice in the head: once from behind and once from the right/front.  The problem is that the Zapruder film does not show the limousine stopping at all – or even significantly slowing down.

Hill vs. Zapruder

Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was assigned to protect Jackie Kennedy, has maintained since the day of the assassination that once he heard shots fired he jumped off the running board of the Secret Service limousine, ran forward, and climbed onto the back fender of the president’s limousine. For him to do this, the vehicle had to be either stopped or going very slowly.

There is another key discrepancy between Hill’s account and what we see in the film: Hill says he climbed across the back of the trunk and lay across the back seat, covering the president and Mrs. Kennedy. From this close-up vantage point, Hill was able to see that there was blood, a fist-sized hole in the back of his head, and brain splattered over the trunk. A piece of the president’s skull was sitting on the seat.

If Hill is correct, then the Zapruder film can’t be authentic, because it does not show him covering the Kennedys at all; it just shows him climbing onto the back fender of the car and reaching towards Mrs. Kennedy. In one of his most recent articles, Fetzer has explained that, although efforts were made to alter the other films using the Zapruder as the guideline, the Nix film shows Hill moving significantly closer and making contact with Jackie, which is not seen in Zapruder.

The Moorman Polaroid

Another important piece of evidence that calls the Zapruder film into question is the Polaroid shot taken by Mary Moorman an instant after the shot that killed Kennedy. Photo expert Jack White, who showed why the famous photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his back yard was a fake, has determined the exact spot where the Moorman photo had to have been taken from – not only considering the necessary line of site, but also the distance above ground level. His analysis backs up Moorman’s claim that both she and her friend Jean Hill were standing in the street when the photo was taken, with Moorman even calling out to Kennedy to look her way for a photo.

The problem with this is that in the Zapruder film, both Moorman and Hill are seen standing on the grass. White’s research has also shown that the spectators visible in the background as the limousine moves past Zapruder’s location appear disproportionately large in comparison to those in the limousine. The implication is that the film is a composite and that background was enlarged to eliminate troublesome details.

“They used the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects, whereby you can combine any foreground with any background and introduce any changes you would like to make,” Fetzer says. “So they removed the limo stop, they actually blacked out the blowout in the back of his head, they added a blob to make it look like there was a bulging of brains to his right front.”

Other anomalies

There are other anomalies with the Zapruder film, according to Fetzer. He says that bystanders supposedly watching the presidential motorcade pass by on Elm Street were actually filmed earlier. These bystanders do not appear to be reacting to Kennedy at all (the crowds on Houston Street were cheering and waving at the president and Mrs. Kennedy just prior to the motorcade turning onto Elm). Some are not even looking at the president as the limousine passes them. Instead they appear to be looking towards Houston as if still waiting for the president to arrive.

“Why they made that change is not completely clear,” Fetzer says.

A photograph by the Associated Press’s James Altgens shows a row of onlookers standing on Houston Street across the intersection of Elm as the motorcade goes by. The Zapruder film also shows a row of onlookers at that location. The problem is that they aren’t the same people. Given that these images would have been recorded at virtually the same moment, one or the other or both can’t be genuine.  But the simplest proof, he says, is that the blow-out at the back of JFK’s head is visible in frame 374, but is blacked-out in earlier frames. 

“They simply overlooked it.” 

The Moorman photograph also shows a figure at the top of the grassy knoll who appears to be wearing a police uniform and who appears to be pointing an object towards the president’s limousine. This figure has been dubbed “Badge Man,” and Fetzer is convinced he is one of the shooters.

“There appear to be 8, 9, or 10 shots from 6 different directions,” Fetzer says.

Fetzer`s scenario

Here is Fetzer’s summary of the shooting:

  • The first shot came from the roof of the Dallas County Records Building. It was apparently fired by a Dallas deputy sheriff named Harry Weatherford. This shot hit Kennedy in the back, about five-and-a-half inches below the collar and just to the right of the spinal column. This shot may have been intended to implant a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet in the president, which is the type of rifle Oswald is accused of using.
  • The second shot appeared to come from the south end of the triple underpass and was fired by former Air Force sharpshooter Jack Lawrence, who had been working in a local car dealership for a short time (the same dealership that provided the mismatched cars for the motorcade – making it easy for shooters to determine which limousine was the president’s) and who didn’t show up for work that day but later arrived with his pants covered in mud. A car he had borrowed from the dealership the day before was found parked behind the fence on the grassy knoll. Lawrence was arrested and questioned but later released.
  • Fetzer also identifies CIA agent and mobster Frank Sturgis as having fired the explosive shot that entered Kennedy’s right temple and resulted in the rear head exit wound from the north end of the Triple Underpass. This was most likely the shot that the killed Kennedy. Sturgis would later be arrested for the Watergate burglary along with E. Howard Hunt, who has confessed to being part of the plot to kill Kennedy. Sturgis was arrested again several years later in New York by detective Jim Rothstein, Fetzer says, when he went there to murder Marita Lorenz who was a former lover of Fidel Castro and who the CIA had tried to enlist to kill Castro. This hit was intended to prevent Lorenz from testifying at hearings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Fetzer says Rothstein arrested Sturgis when he broke into Lorenz’s apartment. Sturgis admitted to Rothstein that he had been one of the JFK shooters. “Frank Sturgis was open about having shot JFK,” Fetzer says. “He said he had done it because Kennedy had betrayed the brigade at the Bay of Pigs and because he was cavorting with beautiful women who were foreign nationals who were spies and therefore posing a threat to national security.”
  • Three shots were fired from the 2nd floor window of the Dal-Tex Building, which was across the street from the Texas School Book Depository, by an anti-Castro Cuban named Nestor “Tony” Izquierdo using a Mannlicher-Carcano, which Fetzer believes was the only unsilenced weapon. Given its unreliability, it scored two misses and one hit. One hit the sidewalk near the triple underpass injuring bystander James Tague; another hit the chrome strip above the limo’s windshield. But the third hit Kennedy in the back of the head.
  • Another shot came from the grassy knoll, apparently from Dallas police officer Roscoe White (Badge Man), who appears to have missed because he did not want to injure Jackie Kennedy.
  • Shots that hit Texas Governor John Connally were fired by Malcolm “Mac” Wallace, who was Lyndon Johnson’s personal hit man and who was under the false impression that he was shooting at liberal Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough, who was Johnson’s nemesis, rather than Connally. “The fact that Lyndon Johnson had been unsuccessful at getting Connally out of the limousine and Yarborough in actually worked to the benefit of the conspirators because it obfuscated the politics,” Fetzer says. Wallace fired as many as three shots. His fingerprint was later found on a cardboard box that had been place to create the impression of a sniper’s lair. He was actually firing from the other side of the building.

The magic bullet

The account of the assassination decided upon by the Warren Commission has just three shots being fired at the president. It was initially claimed that the first two shots had hit Kennedy with the third hitting Connally. But when it surfaced that one shot had missed, injuring Tague, then the theory had to be revised. That’s where the “magic bullet” theory came from, courtesy of Commission member Arlen Specter.

This theory suggested that one bullet hit Kennedy in the back, exiting his throat, hitting Connally in the back, passing through his body and entering his right wrist, and then his left thigh. And after all that, the bullet that is supposed to have done all of this ended up on a stretcher in the hallway at Parkland Hospital in virtually pristine condition.

This brings us to something “astonishing” that Fetzer learned during an interview with a former neighbor and close personal friend of Sam Kinney, who was driving the Secret Service limousine (the one that followed the president’s). Gary L. Loukes told Tuskin and Fetzer, who was also a guest on the show, that Kinney had told him in 1986 that he had found a bullet in the limousine and he had taken that bullet and placed it on a stretcher in Parkland. Loukes added that Kinney had asked Loukes to keep the secret until after Kinney’s death, which occurred in 2000. He decided to keep it in confidence until his wife also died, which took place in 2008. For the interview, see

“This is very revealing because most of us had supposed that the magic bullet was a plant that Jack Ruby had left on the stretcher, so it is fascinating to learn that it was in fact Sam Kinney, the driver of the Secret Service limousine.”

Fetzer says it’s “very plausible” that the bullet that Kinney placed on the stretcher came from the shot that hit Kennedy in the back, because that shot did not penetrate far and the bullet could easily have fallen out. But, Fetzer adds, this may have been to divert attention from Ruby having actually planted it to undermine conspiracy theories about the assassination.

He says Loukes also confirmed that the agent seen in a photograph washing the blood from the back seat of the limousine was Kinney also. Loukes said that Kinney didn’t want people to remember the president that way, so he decided to clean the car.

A bullet hole from another shot can clearly be seen in the limousine’s windshield in another Altgens photo of the motorcade with the Texas School Book Depository in the background. Fetzer contends that this same photograph actually shows Lee Harvey Oswald standing in a doorway, proving he could not have fired any shots from the sixth floor.

Fetzer also points out that the presidential limousine was sent back to the Ford Motor Company three days after the assassination where it was stripped to the bare metal and rebuilt, including the replacement of the damaged windshield – a clear case of destruction of evidence.

Evidence in the autopsy was clearly falsified as well, he says, pointing to research done by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., that proves that X-rays as well as some of the autopsy photos and reports were tampered with.

“What we found was that the autopsy X-rays had been altered to conceal a massive blowout to the back of the head,” Fetzer says. “There had been more than 40 witnesses reported this blowout, including all the physicians at Parkland Memorial Hospital.”

He adds that one post mortem photograph of the president shows no damage to the front of his head or face, which directly contradicts the apparently fatal head injury seen in the Zapruder film.

The theft of the body

In fact, he says the treatment of the body was unlawful and outrageous from the beginning. For example, Kennedy’s body was forcibly removed from Parkland Hospital, Fetzer says, against all legal precedent (it was, after all, a murder committed in Dallas) and altered to disguise the fact that shots had come from the front, including the fatal one that blew out the back of Kennedy’s head as it exited. Kennedy was loaded onto Air Force One in an expensive ceremonial casket but arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a pinkish-grey shipping casket.

A radiation technician at Bethesda, Jerrol Custer, was taking X-rays to be developed of the president’s body, which was already in the morgue being autopsied, when he looked out the window and saw the grey Navy ambulance pull up with the bronze casket in it (This is one of the facts I first learned of from Lifton’s Best Evidence).

It goes on and on – the falsification of evidence, the destruction of evidence, and the disregarding of witness statements that conflict with the official story. The holes and blatant falsehoods in the Warren Report seem endless. What’s most incredible to this author is that anyone still believes this blatant cover-up. I asked Fetzer what he thought that the perpetrators of 9/11 had learned from how the JFK assassination and subsequent cover-up had played out:

“It taught them how you can get away with practically anything,” he said.

“The American public is so gullible. You can assassinate the president of the United States in broad daylight in a major city in front of hundreds of witnesses, you can take the body, you can alter the body, you can alter the photographs, you alter the X-rays, and you can redo the home movie, and investigative journalists are such dullards and show such a lack of interest and are so willing to defer to authority that they won’t even pursue it.”

Mainstream disinformation

Not only did the mainstream media not pursue an investigation of the hundreds of facts that contradict the official story, but in the lead up to the 50th anniversary, they stood fast in supporting the cover-up as part of a barrage of disinformation that included a feature film, Parkland, which reinforces the entire fiction. Parkland star Paul Giamati said on The Daily Show that he thinks people still cling to conspiracy theories about JFK because it’s more comforting to believe there is order behind the chaos. It’s like the debunkers all read from the same script.

The initial comment I referred to by “Tink” Thompson was from an interview done by documentary filmmaker Errol Morris for the New York Times web site. Listening to Thompson smirk and joke through this is revolting but not surprising. Fetzer addressed the issues raised during that video interview, which was calculated to dispel the idea of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, implying that “suspicious actions” almost invariably have an innocuous explanation, in

Similarly distasteful was watching Tom Brokaw on The Daily Show promoting a special he had done on JFK that included an interview with a man who says he saw Oswald looking in the window of the shoe store where he was working. He thought that was suspicious because who would be shopping for shoes when the president had just been shot? So he followed him to the movie theater where he was soon to be arrested. And who wouldn’t? A guy looking in a store window several miles from the assassination site is bound to be up to no good. Especially if his next move is to go to the movies.

In addition to being an editor and regular contributor to Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer is editor of the web sites Assassination Research and Assassination Science He has written many articles and papers on the Kennedy assassination. Here are some additional links:

“Reasoning about Assassinations”

“Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald” (with Jim Marrs)

“Did George H.W. Bush coordinate a JFK hit team” (with Richard Hooke)

“The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden”

“JFK Part 1: A National Security Event – Oswald didn’t do it”

“JFK Part 2:  A National Security Event – How it was done”

“JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why”


  1. So much to dig into here Craig! I am very interested in finding out more about the missing time in the Zapruder film. I had not heard about that before so I plan to explore it as much as I can. Thanks for the article and the food for thought. I have to say at the outset though that I do not trust Fetzer at all because of his record in the 9/11 truth movement. I will give it a fair look though and see what I can learn.

    1. Have you watched “The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference”, Part 2, Ruffadam? It can be found at

      Or “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” (with Preston James), which can be found at

      But for the time being, let’s focus on JFK. Perhaps I can persuade you that I am on track in both, but JFK for now.

    2. Thanks, Adam. I really think it is worth your time to learn more about this. I know I’ve learned a lot while working on the article. In addition to my interview with Jim, I watched the entire 2003 symposium that he organized. I’m impressed by the fact that Jack White and David Lifton are on board regarding Zapruder (actually, White had been analyzing the film for decades – unfortunately he passed away last year). As I mentioned, I read Lifton’s Best Evidence when it came out. He was also one of the prominent interviewees on an installment of The Fifth Estate (a Canadian current affairs show that has been on CBC for 39 years) that looked at the evidence for conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. I have this show on one of my dusty VHS tapes. How this program handles “conspiracies in 2013 vs. 1983 is revealing, but that’s a subject for another article. In his book, Lifton makes the utterly convincing case that Kennedy’s body was altered to hide the truth. This was a revelation for me at the time. Given that alteration of the body has been established, the idea that they would alter a piece of film doesn’t strike me as far-fetched at all. But I remain open to learning more, including from researchers who don’t believe this.

    3. Adam (and all reading here),

      I can understand your trepidation regarding Fetzer, considering his history in the 9/11 movement. However, what is at hand here is an evaluation of the evidence, and in particular, Fetzer is simply summarizing what many other researchers are concluding.

      Whatever peoples’ view on on Fetzer, this is no reason to dismiss the evidence he presents.

      Similarly, problems people have with Rob Balsamo are no basis to dismiss out of hand the tech analyses of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which has so many great members and has done lots of great investigative legwork.

      Adam Syed

      1. I agree with you, Adam S. It must always be facts and evidence before personalities. Adam Ruff expressed a willingness to look into the evidence, which is all we can ask of anyone. And considering that the three of us (and let’s not forget Paul Z. and others who comment here regularly) are willing to stand up to “respectable” members of the Truth movement on the Pentagon, it seems that we have to be willing to follow the JFK evidence wherever it leads as well.

        1. Well, the question still revolves around the facts of conspiracy, was it, or was it not? Three bullets or 14 bullets? In front or in back? Go back now and wonder why Tippitt was killed. He was out of his district, why? Answer: He was to be the “fall guy” to wake up the Dallas Police to head in that direction for “Oswald”, hence, collateral damage. That in itself shows it was all a conspiracy by high powered murdering idiots!

    4. very interesting podcast but its been over 50 years now and are we still going to be talking about this 50 more years from now then why don’t we just drove into the Lincoln assassination. Nobody’s ever going to get to the bottom of what happened and there are so many series out there a good it makes people who believe in conspiracy look like their kooks.what happened to President Kennedy was terrible and he was probably the only president that really did care about the little guy. And he may have been killed by a conspiracy but you can bank on one thing if there’s a hell and I believe there is those people who perpetrated the crime at this very moment paying the consequences

      1. Greg, really! Of course people will keep talking, but it’s not due to incompleteness or inaccuracies in the main case anymore, really. It’s simply due to lack of official support. That’s it.

  2. If this blog wanted to discuss the Zapruder film, a better opening would have been presentation of a debate between a proponent and an opponent of the authenticity of the Zapruder film. However, given that we have been now offered the full exposure to an opponent, I recommend a followup interview with the major proponent, Robert Groden, who was at one of the two Dallas research events last month.

    The two conferences in Dallas this past November on the JFK assassination were organized by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) and by Lancer; I don’t have knowledge that Jim Fetzer was at either one, nor at the Wecht major research conference the prior month in Pittsburgh where Groden spoke among many others ( Groden was also in Dallas.

    The best single book on the JFK assassination is James Douglass’ “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters”. It accepts the authenticity of the Zapruder film, and so does Oliver Stone’s “JFK”. For those exposed to Michael Ruppert shortly after September 11th (for myself it was in Toronto in Jan or Feb of 2002), we know that Ruppert would begin his lectures on September 11th with a re-running of some ten times of Kennedy’s head going backwards from a shot on the grassy knoll. So, Fetzer is undermining the integrity of James Douglass and Michael Ruppert, famed for “Crossing the Rubicon”. (I have never met Robert Groden) as well as Oliver Stone and Fletcher Prouty (who would require another posting).

    Groden’s latest book is “Absolute Proof”, published last month but I believe it is expensive. I haven’t been able to find contents. However, his prior book “JFK: The Case for Conspiracy – Memorial Edition (Current Version)” sells for $9.95 at A recent reviewer at Amazon surveys the issue presented in that earlier book as follows:

    5.0 out of 5 stars Remarkable collection of photos, August 3, 2013
    This review is from: The Killing of a President: The Complete Photographic Record of the JFK Assassination… (Hardcover)

    No matter what you think of Robert Groden and his checkered career, and sometimes questionable claims, this coffee-table format book of photos (some of them very rare) is an essential addition to any JFK researcher’s library.

    Groden obtained a pristine copy of the Zapruder film from Moses Weitzman, the owner of a New York motion picture optical house that performed post-production work on films. He possessed a first-generation mechanic’s copy of the Zapruder film and allowed Robert Groden to study it. He used an optical printer to make the first optically enhanced copies of the film by stabilizing and enlarging the images. “First, I rephotographed the film, frame by frame, repositioning the President in each frame so the motions were fluid. I zoomed in, making the images larger within the frame, then used a technique called step framing to slow it down.” In February 1975 activist Dick Gregory arranged a press conference for Groden to announce the showing of his copy of the film to the Rockefeller Commission. Geraldo Rivera aired it on his show; Rivera demanded that ABC broadcast it, and they did on “Good Night America” March 6 1975. The public reaction to the film, which had not been seen publicly except briefly during the Garrison investigation, was overwhelming. There were many new calls for reopening the investigation. On April 15 1975, Groden appeared before Virginia’s Congressional delegation and showed them his films and photographic evidence. Congressman Thomas N. Downing quickly introduced a resolution to reopen the investigation, which eventually would lead to the formation of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

    1. Paul is a good guy who doesn’t know how much we know about the faking of the film. And he doesn’t appear to be a careful reader. I observe in passing, for example, that the blow out at the back of his head, visible in frame 374, was painted over in black in earlier frames.

      Did he bother to read, “The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden”, where I make that point and outline eight lines of proof that the film has been massively edited? No, of course not. If he actually looked at the evidence, he could not maintain this stance. See

      US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication”

      Since I have found that citing links does not work with most who comment here, please know that the original film was taken to the NPIC Saturday, 23 November 1963. It was an 8mm split film developed in Dallas. They had to go out and buy a projector to view it.

      The substitute was brought there on Sunday, 24 November 1963. It was a 16mm, not yet split film that had been developed in Rochester, where the CIA has a secret photo and film lab known as “Hawkeyeworks”. Excellent work has been done on this by Douglas Horne:

      “The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration” (with Douglas P. Horne)

      “The Two NPCI Zapruder Film Events: Analysis and Implications” (with Douglas P. Horne)

      Here’s another article of mine that addresses these issues, which he might also want to read. The answer to the question, of course, is “No!”, because no one filmed a film that was created in a laboratory. If Paul has more questions, I would be glad to address them.

      “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?”

      1. The thrust of my comment is ask for both sides of this controversy to have equal standing if we are going to get into the authenticity of the Zapruder film issues. Robert Groden claims its authenticity and takes the opposite position to Jim Fetzer. Groden’s work is well regarded within the JFK research community.

        Isn’t the Zapruder film KEY evidence in favor of a conspiracy to execute the President? I believe that this is the single most important contribution of its release and the subsequent use by Stone, by Ruppert, and by Douglas.

        Why doesn’t this blog article so state (or re-state) at least that much about the Zapruder film?

        Groden would be an antidote to this inadequacy but others could also make a careful argument. Instead, we are starting from a titling “The faking of the Zapruder film….”

        1. Paul, Have you read any of the references cited here? I have even provided a summary of the eight lines of argument against Z-film authenticity, which does not even include frame 374. You are adopting a stance that I would compare to insisting that both points of view be presented about the claim that Earth is not flat. You need to do your homework before you continue to defend an indefensible position. Get up-to-speed about the Z-film–and the Nix, for that matter: Both films have been altered. Both are false depictions of what actually happened on Elm Street. You need to review the evidence.

        2. Paul,

          I’m not sure “equal standing” should be the goal of any discussion. I think fairness and a sincere and thorough evaluation of the evidence is essential, however. The headline reflects the fact that this article is based on “an interview with Jim Fetzer.” I must say, though, that as a result of watching the entire Zapruder symposium that Jim organized (the one in 2003), I now have serious doubts about the authenticity of the film. I plan to continue learning about the subject, including examining the positions of people like Groden.

          You say: “Isn’t the Zapruder film KEY evidence in favor of a conspiracy to execute the President?” I guess I would suggest that if it is faked and can be proven to be faked then that fact would be even more compelling proof of a conspiracy. And this would clearly implicate the U.S. government (along with Dallas police, etc.), whereas just proving a shot from the front only proves the government was part of a cover-up. The fact that Zapruder seems to support the conspiracy position hasn’t made any difference to our mainstream media, which overwhelmingly stand behind the “Oswald as lone gunman” position.

          My view, whether with JFK or 9/11 or anything else, is that we have to follow the truth wherever it leads us. If the Zapruder film is genuine and unaltered, then that position will stand up to scrutiny.

    2. I would be more than happy to interview Robert Groden should he be willing. This article wasn’t originally conceived as an evaluation of the authenticity of the Zapruder film, but that’s the angle that seemed most compelling to me once I had done the interview with Jim. I haven’t read any books by Groden, but I am open to hearing his point of view.

      I have to say that ever since I first saw the Zapruder film I’ve been uncomfortable about some aspects of it. Sort of like how I felt in 2001 that there was something wrong with how the Twin Towers came down even though I hadn’t put the pieces together (no pun intended) yet. I’ve always thought that Zapruder, while it seemed to show an impact from the right front, also shows the massive wound in the president’s head to be too far forward to fit with what the medical personnel described (a large wound to the right back of the head) and what the autopsy photos show. I’ve also had this uneasy feeling that the people visible in the background as the limo passes the camera are not right. They seem too close and too large in relation to the limousine and the people in it. That’s not a scientific analysis, just an impression I’ve always had. Finally, it always struck me how the Secret Service agent (Clint Hill) was able to run forward and jump onto the limo while it was still moving. With the numerous witnesses who describe the car stopping, it now makes more sense how he was able to catch up. Given that he was riding on the running board of the limo following Kennedy’s, how else could he have done it given the speed we see in Zapruder?

      I also own JFK and the Unspeakable and find it to be a magnificent contribution to our knowledge of why Kennedy was killed; I don’t think that questioning Zapruder undermines the work by Douglass or Stone. In a case where tons of evidence was suppressed, altered or destroyed, the idea of a film being tampered with doesn’t seem beyond belief at all. But I’d be happy to get other perspectives.

    3. From “The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden”,

      So much proof that the film is a fabrication has been published–where some of those proofs are as simple and straightforward as the one I have just presented [comparing frame 374 with earlier frames]–that I shall simply summarize some of the most important proofs that have appeared since the publication of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), where it is beyond belief that any serious student of the assassination of JFK, much less experts on film and photos, would continued to deny them:

      (1) We have more than 60 witnesses who reported seeing the limo slow dramatically or come to a complete stop, where it slowed dramatically AS it came to a complete stop, where those witnesses include all four of the motorcycle escort officers: See “What happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak” compiled by John P. Costella, Ph.D.

      (2) We also know that Officer James Chaney motored forward to inform Chief Curry the president had been shot, which was confirmed by Chief of Police Jesse Curry, Secret Service Agents Winston Lawson and Forrest Sorrels, as well as Motorcycle Officers Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, and Marrion Baker: See “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery”.

      (3) We know that, for nearly 50 years, Clint Hill has described climbing on the trunk, pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, peering into the wound, observing a fist-sized blow-out and giving a “thumbs down”, all before the limo had reached the Triple Underpass: See “JFK: Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”

      (4) We know that the original 8mm, already split film developed in Dallas, was taken to the NPIC on Saturday, the 23rd, and that a substitute 16mm, unsplit film, developed in Rochester, was taken there on Sunday, the 24th, where two different teams worked on the different versions: See ”US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication”.

      (5) We also know that a half-dozen or more have viewed another film, apparently the original, including William Reymond, Rich DellaRosa, Gregory Burnham and several others, where Rich DellaRosa’s description of its content appears as an Appendix to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003): See “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?”

      (6) We have John Costella’s precise visual tutorial about evidence internal to the film that explains how we can know that the film is a fabrication, where all of its frames had to be reshot to create the right sequence of “ghost panels”: See “The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: An Introduction”. Here’s an informal discussion of his research on the film:

      (7) We know that they not only removed the limo stop but painted over the blow-out in early frames and that the “blob” and the blood spray were painted in, but that they overlooked that in later frames, especially in Frame 374, the blow-out can be seen, as I explain in many places, including “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today”,

      (8) More recently, in “The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration”(2012) and “The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Analysis and Implications” (2012), Doug Horne has substantiated that the original was taken to the NPIC on Saturday, the 23rd, and the substitute was brought there on Sunday, the 24th.

      The timeline argument–that there was no opportunity for the film to have been faked, which Josiah Thompson has endlessly promoted–has no basis in fact and was merely a gambit. We know that the film was altered, which can be proven by multiple lines of argument. We also know when and where it was altered and when and where the fake film was substituted for the original. Since rationality requires that we revise our beliefs with the acquisition of new evidence and alternative hypotheses, the time has come to abandon the fantasy that the Zapruder film is authentic.

  3. Jack White already declared the Zapruder Film was a fake, and showed how they manufactured the film using two film projectors. The fatal shot came from the Grassy Knoll and the damage to the skull of JFK was thoroughly identified as a close range impact.

  4. Let me say how much I appreciate the time and effort that Craig McKee expended on this. The case is so sprawling and complex that it virtually defies discussion in brief compass, but he succeeded admirably. More on the politics of the assassination can be found in “JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why” and my presentation.

    Additional proof of the damage to the head comes from Jackie’s testimony to the Warren Commission, in which she explained that he looked just fine from the front but that she had had a terrible time trying to keep his skull and brains together at the rear, which was not published on grounds of privacy rather than that it contradicted the commission’s report.

  5. Interesting article, Mr. McKee.

    If memory serves me, back in the day of UseNetNews (e.g., early 1990’s), I recall reading an analysis of the faking involved with the Zapruder film. The reason I peg this early date is that Oliver Stone’s “JFK” didn’t touch on the known tainting of the Zapruder film.

    Somewhere in the last decade (early on), I recall seeing a video about the film editing techniques available in 1963 and how the Zapruder film was manipulated. Glaring artifacts of their editing remain and are probably highlighted in the many links provided above.

    In the very likely event that my recollection is in error of when I saw an Internet analysis of the Zapruder film, the fact remains: the Zapruder film can’t be trusted as an accurate depiction of reality of 11/22/1963.

    Mr. Adam Ruff huffed and puffed:

    I have to say at the outset though that I do not trust Fetzer at all because of his record in the 9/11 truth movement.

    It is okay for him to “distrust” but that doesn’t alleviate him the burden of “verify”. Sure, Dr. Fetzer has been so far out there on the bleeding edge of conspiracy theory, he has on occasion fallen off. Pods-on-planes shooting missiles, holograms, awestruck support of Dr. Wood come to mind. Yet, Dr. Fetzer’s beliefs have shifted as more evidence and improved analysis came to light.

    Whereas Dr. Fetzer can be faulted for being too open-minded and being duped by too many things, Mr. Adam Ruff can be faulted for being too closed-minded and zero-tolerance oriented. By that, Mr. Ruff has been too eager to sweep copious amounts of evidence (and valid analysis) off of the table when its container (or disinformation vehicle) was discovered to have instances of disinformation, whether deliberate or accidental. Plays right into the hands of the disinformation agenda.


    1. Actually, SEO,

      If you look at the rest of Adam Ruff’s comment, i.e. the words that surrounded the part where he said he doesn’t trust Fetzer, you’ll see that he says:

      “So much to dig into here Craig! I am very interested in finding out more about the missing time in the Zapruder film. I had not heard about that before so I plan to explore it as much as I can.”


      “I will give it a fair look though and see what I can learn.”

      So, your representation of Ruff as

      “too eager to sweep copious amounts of evidence (and valid analysis) off of the table”

      is not accurate. I would also say that “huffs and puffs” was an instance of hyperbole.

      1. When Adam Syed refers to my “history with the 9/11 movement”, I have no idea what he has in mind. The split with Steve Jones at the end of 2006 was not my doing but his decision to part ways because I am willing to entertain hypotheses that go beyond the use of nanothermite. Indeed, anyone who watches Part 2 of “The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference” will understand that I was right and he was wrong.

        Otherwise, I appreciate what SEO and Adam have to say. I formed a research group consisting of the most highly qualified individuals to ever study the case in 1992 and we immediately discovered the official autopsy X-rays had been “patched” to conceal a massive, fist-sized blow out at the back of the head and, since there was no longer anywhere for that brain tissue to go, the substituted another brain for that of JFK.

        In all three of my books, we have presented more and more proof that the Zapruder film was altered to conceal the limo stop–the most stunning of some 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit–and it altering the appearance of the wounds by blacking out the blow-out at the back of the head and adding the “blob” to the right front and tidying up the trunk. We were right-on from the beginning.

        Paul Zarembka appears to be so smitten with those he regards as “experts”–Groden, Douglass, and Oliver Stone, for example–he’s lost track of who the real experts are. Groden has done research on the photos and films but now defends a position that cannot withstand critical scrutiny. I am not impugning their (or Michael Ruppert’s) integrity but observing that some of their claims are provably false, where we should not be applauding unsound or improper arguments merely because we like them.

        JFK was hit four times: in the back (from behind); in the throat (from in front); and in the back of the head (from behind) and the right temple (from the right/front). But he did not display the violent back-and-to-the-left motion seen in the film. It came from excessively editing frames when he slumped to the side. Kindly check out “JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why”, where I explain how this specific effect came about.

      2. Thank you Mr. Syed for saying that. I have unfortunately found myself being relentlessly stalked by SEO much like HR1. I think you will notice a hypersensitivity in SEO related to my comments and to HR1’s comments where every word is disected for possible avenues of attack. I think that speaks volumes about SEO. I have no interest in talking to SEO nor do I address comments to him/her/it yet in each case you see that SEO uses virtually anything I say to launch an attack.

        This time around I am NOT going to veer off the topic no matter what SEO says or does. I believe it is a calculated attempt to yet again ruin another good discussion and I will do my utmost to prevent that from happening.

        As to the missing time issue with the Zapruder film I have my own ways of looking at that issue since I deal with photography and video quite a bit. I can tell you this though that removing multiple frames or seconds from a film creates some very serious issues that are not at all easy to cover-up especially when we are dealing with motion by the camera and motion in the sceen. If seconds or frames are removed waving arms for example will suddenly jump to different positions or moving people in the background will jump and the point where the film is cut to remove time will almost certainly show clear evidence that it was cut. Now there may be ways of compositing parts of a sceen to cover these anomolies up but that too will leave behing traces of alteration some of which have been mentioned in the article we are discussing now. At this point I cannot say one way or the other about the missing time issue since I have to study the information still.

        I can say that some people are good at photo analysis and video analysis and some people are not and it makes a huge difference in the final conclusions they draw. Judy Wood for example is terrible at photo and video analysis and her conclusions reflect those shortfalls in her analysis skills. The video fakery advocates for the 9/11 films of aircraft hitting the towers suffer from similar issues where their poor analysis skills lead them into erroneous conclusions.

        I will see what I find out about the Zapruder film and check back in here when I have some thoughts.

      3. Dear Mr. Syed,

        I appreciate you pointing out verbiage from Mr. Ruff that indicates his seeming willingness to explore things relating to JFK that he might not be that familiar with.

        However, I stand by my “huffing and puffing” hyperbole to chide Mr. Ruff into doing exactly what he promises (e.g., objective review), because I know of at least two 9/11 fronts where he glaringly didn’t. Some negative, 2nd-3rd hand, internet, echo-chamber assessments of some research or researcher dominated his opinion of the work and prevented him from doing his own objective review of the same [to mine for nuggets of truth.] Thereafter, just mentioning the name of the researcher [e.g., Dr. Judy Wood, Anonymous Physicist] was sufficient for him to do what I charge: “too eager to sweep copious amounts of evidence (and valid analysis) off of the table.” [“Copious” does not mean “all”, but does mean “substantial” and “not to be ignored or brushed off on a loony whim.”]

        Given some of Dr. Fetzer’s previous associations and championing of Dr. Judy Wood, “No Planes”, holograms, etc., the trend line from Mr. Ruff could have easily been to discount Dr. Fetzer’s JFK work based on some of Dr. Fetzer’s 9/11 efforts. Guilt by association. [I give Dr. Fetzer kudos for being open-minded enough to consider such themes and courageous enough to promote and defend them, for the benefit offered discussion and understanding.]

        Yep, with my postings about Mr. Ruff’s “huffing and puffing”, I am indeed thwapping him gently on the forehead, because some unfinished nuclear business remains between us of a similar closed-minded nature, where “huffing and puffing” ain’t gonna cut it. Foreshadowing. Forewarning. Fore-arming.


        1. SEO, I approved your comment with great hesitation. Whether it is fair or not, the comment is an attempt to provoke Mr. Ruff into a future discussion that has nothing to do with this thread. I’m concerned here with the evidence concerning JFK and particularly the Zapruder film (although anything related to the assassination is fine), not Judy Wood or related subjects. You can hold Mr. Ruff accountable for his JFK comments once he makes some.

      4. I am sure Mr Ruff is as concerned as I am about “cutting it” as per SEO’s opinions; that is not concerned at all.

        This makes it just about every single thread now that we have to get this hyperbole about Wood…

        Kryst on a kracker time…


      5. “Indeed, anyone who watches Part 2 of “The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference” will understand that I was right and he was wrong.”~Jim Fetzer, on
        DECEMBER 10, 2013 – 2:37 PM

        Absolute bullshit.

        Do yourself a favor Fetzer, keep it to JFK here.


  6. Dear Craig, this is a wonderful post about some complex topics. May I suggest that you add, to the body of the text about Tink and Costella, the link to the place where Costella rebuts, point for point, the false mathematics Tink’s team used about the perspective and optics in the film: ? It is set up as a reply to each objection raised by Tink to each section of the book, “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”. Kudos to you.

    (It was Costella’s formal proof of film fakery — an impossible perspective and blur for any camera on any planet — and his rebuttal of Tink’s challenege to him on the math, which taught me the first absolute I knew of in the JFK assassination research. It set me on the path to understanding that the timing and impressions of the case are off, if the film is used as a final arbiter, but that if it is “thrown out”, so to speak, for most of its content, then the work on what witnesses and forensics say, can stand and condemn the claims of a non-conspiracy. — The other two important absolutes are: 1. that Kennedy had a backbone, so no matter who shot, from where, or how people were sitting, a bullet could not deflect from near the spine to centre front neck inside Kennedy’s body, even if it deflected up or down, so there had to be at least two shooters, whoever they were; and 2. that Oswald’s shirts, very distinctive ones, are on the figure in the Altgens photo of the assassination, who stands in the doorway, so the figure was an altered Oswald, not his coworker Billy Lovelady, who wore a striped shirt, nor can Oswald or Lovelady be the figure in TV who seems to be an agent, in a checkered shirt, and which was confused into the situation, by claiming Lovelady wore a checkered shirt and the figure in the doorway was this nonexistent Lovelady, by adding a few grey blobs to Oswald’s shirt, for an inaccurate but impressional suggestion that Oswald’s shirt was checkered in part. So Oswald was not even a shooter, and happened also to be caught on film as a non-shooter.)

    1. Thanks, Clare. And I’m glad you mentioned the Altgens photo. I would like to have gotten into more detail about why Oswald could not have been a shooter (and could not have shot Officer J.D. Tippitt), but I felt that I had enough on my plate for this article. I’m sure I’ll revisit the Oswald angle. I’m very anxious to read David Lifton’s book on Oswald, which I understand he’s been working on for years.

      1. I love Lifton’s famous work on argument, thinking and the JFK case, his book, “Best Evidence”. On the other hand, he now has a remarkable blind spot about the Oswald Altgens research and about Judyth Vary Baker’s position in the case — as if these two items were just too much to consider, i.e., merely fantastical additions to the JFK death story. Yet, of course, they actually have pretty straightforward reasons to include them. So be careful.

  7. I have been convinced that Fetzer is a charlatan since the arguments with him on issues of 9/11. I do not trust his motives nor his findings on any subject.

    I also have no patience for Jack White, after going through his 9/11 drivel. He reminds me of Simon Shack and his goofy ‘photo analysis’…

    I have known for some forty plus years that the Dallas event was a coup d’etat. I too read Lipton’s book when it came out. I think there is important information in there. But I think going to people like Fletcher Prouty is much more beneficial. Jim Marrs’ CROSSFIRE, as well…I have also have Groden’s books, and many others.

    Agitprop always has elements of truth mixed in with red herrings.

    I did study the pages on the analysis of the Zapruder film offered here. I won’t give an opinion on it at this time, I need to look into it deeper.


    1. Craig, I think that anyone who resorts to crude ad hominems and views “Bullshit!” as an argument has no place on a civilized forum. I have not said a word about him until now, but I regard him as a disgrace to “Truth and Shadows”, which is for adults, not children.

      1. Here’s my idea: we talk about the substance of the JFK assassination and/or any of the information contained in this article or linked to in this post. If people want to take issue with something, let it be about facts and evidence, not using personal attacks. I am still waiting for a good argument against the idea of the Zapruder film being altered, but I haven’t heard one yet. I understand that some people might be going through the material still.

        I do have a question, Jim. I’m hearing from the defenders of the Z film that they think it’s a crucial piece of evidence that supports the idea of a conspiracy, and for that reason they don’t believe it’s altered. That’s because it shows Kennedy’s head snapping back. Why do you think they wouldn’t alter the film to have his head go forward, which would support the shot coming from behind? Or at least make the head movement less dramatic?

        1. Well, the question is whether the film is authentic or not. If the film is not authentic–and I’ve outlined eight lines of argument that prove the point–why would anyone want to persist in defending their position on the basis of a fake film? Of course, it creates the dramatic impression of a violent motion back-and-to-the-left. But none of the bystanders reported seeing that violent back-and-to-the-left.

          On the contrary, those who have seen another, more complete film, report that, during the limo stop–for which we have eyewitness after eyewitness–he was hit twice: first in the back of the head (and he slumped forward); then after Jackie eased him up and was looking him right in the face, he was hit in the right temple (and slumped to the left).

          In editing the film, which was done under the pressure of time, they merged the two wounds but left a frame in which he moves forward and then violently back-and-to-the-left. I have explained this in greatest detail in “JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why”. But when some of the proofs are so simple–such as comparing frame 374 with earlier frames in which the wound was painted over in black, as a group of Hollywood film restoration experts have confirmed–how can any rational soul deny it?

          We also know that the “blob” was painted in and that the witnesses, including Jackie, contradict it. No one observed a blow-out at the right/front of his head. The blood spray dissipates too rapidly. Erwin Swartz, an associate of Abe Zapruder, viewed the original and saw his brains blown across the trunk to the left/rear. And Officer Bobby Hargis riding there was hit so hard by the debris that he initially thought he himself had been shot. What is there here that’s open to debate?

          The fact that the government went to such great lengths to create a fabricated film–which had to be reshot in a photo lab lest the ghost panel sequence given the fakery away–is a far more powerful proof of complicity than the shot from the right/front. He WAS shot from the right/front, but we know that from the research on the X-rays by David W. Mantik and not simply from the films and photographic record.

          We even know where and when it was done: that the original was taken to the NPIC on Saturday (an 8mm, already split film, developed in Dallas) and that the substitute was taken there on Sunday (a 16mm unsplit film, developed in Rochest at a secret CIA photo lab known as “Hawkeyeworks”). The ARRB hammered the final nail in the coffin of Z-film authenticity, where there are no good reasons to deny what has been proven.

          No one who has a serious concern about establishing the truth of the assassination ought to have any hesitation in accepting that the film is a fabrication, which, like the alteration of the X-rays and the substitution of another brain, provides more powerful proof of who was behind the assassination.

          The Mafia, for example, could not have extended its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under the control of medical officers of the US Navy, Secret Service agents and the president’s personal physician. Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted someone else’s brain for that of JFK.

          Even if the KGB had capabilities comparable to those of Hollywood or the CIA to alter films, it could not have gained possession of the Zapruder. Nor could any of these things have been done by Lee Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. The alteration of the film thus implies the existence of a far deeper and more sinister plot to remove one president and install another than most Americans have ever imagined.

      2. Dear Dr. Fetzer,

        Many excellent points to ponder in your response(s). JFK is a fascinating subject for me, but neither my passion nor my hobby-horse. I find your words re-affirming of many things I had learned in the past but forgotten or never intellectually pursued. Thanks for the refresher.

        Gee, I guess if we consider imagery manipulation having occurred in the Zapruder film and that this is a hallmark meme of September Clues, then maybe we have here another disinformation goal of September Clues. Namely, foul up the imagery manipulation meme so badly on 9/11, it leaves a sour taste in our mouth when considering other historical media manipulation, like with JFK.


  8. Hybridrogue1, I would certainly like to hear why you think Jack White is goofy, and particularly why his JFK analysis is not to be taken seriously. Dismissing him because he reminds you of Simon Shack doesn’t seem very fair, but I’m not aware of White’s statements on 9/11. But regardless of what he has said about that, his JFK work should be evaluated on its own merits.

    You say Lifton’s book contains important information, but this seems to suggest that it is also lacking in some important way. I’d like to know why you feel that way. Why should one go to Prouty and Marrs (I also own Crossfire and several other books by Marrs, and I agree Prouty is an essential source) INSTEAD of Lifton? Why not all three? Do you dispute that alteration of Kennedy’s body and other autopsy evidence took place?

    I appreciate your last comment, that you will look into the question of the Zapruder film more deeply before pronouncing yourself on that. It should be about the evidence not the messenger.

    1. Hi Craig,

      I didn’t mean to dismiss Lifton at all. Like I said I think it is important information.

      I am reading a paper by John P. Costella right now. It seems pretty compelling. I don’t dismiss anything out of hand. However I am skeptical of anything Fetzer has a hand in. So it takes some special digging on that reckoning. In other words, I want to know what the catch is. Sorry if this seams unreasonable to you … but you know the old saying “once bitten twice shy”…

      Getting to the meat of this is important. It seems compelling as there is so many eyewitnesses who insist the car stopped. I always wondered about that. But thinking on this further, the way it turns out, there was a lot of time between the time of the assassination and the public seeing the actual film said to be shot by Zapruder…

      Now I have watched that film in its many manifestation countless times, I could never put my finger on it, but there has been a nagging sensation that there was something wrong here.
      There was always that ‘lurch’ of the passengers – that indicates breaking. Well I am open to finding out if these people Fetzer is currently promoting are on to the goods. Maybe. If so it would be a zinger for me. You know how it is when you have an MO figured out…
      For a turnaround to take place isn’t often. But it’s not impossible.

      As far as White, I just don’t buy his 9/11 analysis. But there’s no reason to go into that now, anymore than explaining what I have against Fetzer. This is a new subject concerning the both of them. I’m willing to consider this a clean slate to work with.

      There is much to consider here, and like Paul, I’d also like to get the other story from the source, rather than getting it from their opponents — Costella is pretty harsh on them, I want to see for myself if they deserve it.


      1. Fair enough. And I’m glad you mentioned the brake. Because that is really important. The 10-minute You Tube video I linked to is very interesting because it mentions the lurching forward of the passengers, and it looks at how the background lawn and the light pole in the foreground (with the motorcade passing between the two) appear to be fused. As the camera pans, the pole does not change position at all relative to the stuff in the distance.

  9. I don’t believe his name was Lee Harvey Oswald…..I went through that brainwashing crap. I believe he was a double who took on the name of Lee Oswald. The real Lee Oswald never spoke Russian, let alone go to Minsk Russia. When they exhumed the body in 1980….just after the real Oswald’s mother died; just another coincidence, they left a whole mess of investigative work that got locked up for national security reasons…even the DNA of the corpse ! Go figure, but in the end you’ll come to the conclusion that it was 100% conspiracy, before, during and after the assassination of JFK.

  10. If I may jump in here a moment (and I am going through the material, much of it, this evening): My understanding is that when watching the continuous film, it certainly does support the “back, and to the left” meme. But upon looking at the following 2 frames, it appears that from the first to the second, his head does indeed seem to go forward first.

    As John Costella says:

    This makes things confusing. There seemed to be three possible explanations:

    1. He was hit by two bullets at almost the same time (one from behind and then one from the front).

    2. He was hit from behind, and a jet of brain matter exploding from the front caused his head to recoil backwards.

    3. He was hit from behind and some sort of muscle reaction caused his head to fly backwards.

    People tried to figure this out for three decades. Instead of clearing up the mystery, Zapruder’s film just made things more confusing.

    In the 1990s, researchers started to realize that there was a fourth possible explanation. Zapruder’s film might also be a part of the lies and cover-up that agencies of the U.S. Government had weaved around the JFK assassination!

    While I have not read Vincent Bugliosi’s 1,500+ page book which purports to prove Oswald acted alone, I wouldn’t be surprised to read, in a book that claims “Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud on the American public” (product description, Amazon), Bugliosi draw attention to the fact that the head goes forward first before going back, and that the “JFK conspiracy buffs” never mention that inconvenient fact. Ya know… “Oliver Stone’s movie emphasized the “back and to the left,” but failed to point out that the head went forward first…” Likewise, we do see this red patch of blood at the front during the frame of the fatal shot. And as ballistics experts will tell you, an exit wound is far larger than the entrance wound. So seeing all that red matter in the front could be used by Bugliosi, Posner and other “debunkers” that the Zapruder film actually supports the official version. And yes, probably the excuses for why his head then flew backwards can probably be used, i.e. John Costella’s #2 and #3 reasons quoted above. (As far as I’m aware no researcher on either side is claiming his #1 reason to be a plausible explanation.)

    So, the diabolical plan for the cover up (i.e. keep the waters muddy for a half century and counting) people would be to have a film which appears in real time to actually support the frontal shot / back-and-to-the-left view that is now the “mainstream” view within the truth community, but can also be seized upon later by “debunkers” as having been misinterpreted by “conspiracy theorists like Oliver Stone” when actually analyzed in super depth. Then, those who advocate that the Z film was altered can really dismissed as “fringe even within the JFK truth community.”

    1. Let me also add (as I’m still going through all this): I’m about to get into examining the witnesses who said the limo came to a complete halt. But certainly, if the REAL unaltered film showed the film doing this, then the SS driver coming to a complete stop in order to allow the fatal head shot to be successful would be extremely damning, so that would be an ample motive for the PTB’s to edit out this damning fact.

      1. @Adam Syed
        If you look at the film the car almost comes to a stop. Quite naturally. The driver looked around to see what was happening and would have naturally touched the brake. The brake light can be seen in another film. What is really odd is the suggestion that all this inane fakery would be done to make it look like it didn’t slow down and almost come to a stop when the film shows that it obviously did. And where there is another film showing the brake light that they didn’t alter. Even more inane would be the idea that the driver did this deliberately so that the president sitting behind him could be shot in an open-topped car that he himself was driving! He would have to be insane.

        1. I guess if people eat a lot of marshmallow they start acting like a marshmallow too! If any idiot wants to think JFK was being protected as president of this country, I don’t want that protection and neither do you. To sit here and think the driver didn’t know what was about to happen, means all viewers of it are fools!

      2. “Even more inane would be the idea that the driver did this deliberately so that the president sitting behind him could be shot in an open-topped car that he himself was driving! He would have to be insane.”~A Wright

        No Wright, he would not have had to be insane – he had to be in on the plot to kill Kennedy.

        You are in quicksand here Mr Wright, you will sink quickly should you continue to struggle.


        1. There was so much information kept from the public, it’s all coming out now like a slow stream of Hot Water out of a faucet. For one, the racist racism that went on in America wasn’t from the middle or low class whites, it’s on and from Capital Hill. Here, J.E.Hoover, light skin Black is the racist of all racist, no where can you find a photo of his brother Dickerson in which I believe he was dark skin Black…well, he died in 1992 and is buried at Glen Dale D.C., which is really Maryland. J. Edgar got out of the draft for WWII by the Justice Department… quaint ! So, when you hear this “Free and Justice for all” don’t believe it ! All of the unsolved suicides and murders can be attributed to the FBI, and still is today. Now, the NSA’s trying to get in on it like resurrecting Hoover with steroids, but the Sh-t’s hitting the fan !

    2. Adam Syed,

      none of this is materially important to the issue at hand. Historically, the back-and-to-the-left impression was important in catalyzing many conspiracy hypotheses (worked into fuller theories over time), and the two-frame head-snap forward was not noticeable. To suggest that the backwards motion was anything but a feature of limited frames with JFK in it, is to remain unaware of how the faking was done.

      The faking was done with mask-and-burn methods, mostly; yes, there were some simple edits out (the turn from Houston onto Elm, for example), and some painting (the quickly missing blood spurt forward and some aspects of figures, but most aspects were changed by blocking light for parts of frames, allowing light to fall on the film, frame by frame, only on other parts of the frame. This meant that figures could be pulled from the source film and placed with different figure motions around them, or add figures, change background figures, features, movement in background objects relative to car, etc.

      The proof for this is that one frame has impossible blur for the camera movement and car movement speed in the frames around it, and a few frames have no lens distortion added to certain objects in them. These two aspects are impossible for any natural camera on any planet.


      the back-and-to-the-left motion must be from when Jack was eased up by Jackie; they would have had to use these frames because his head was not in some radical position and condition in them, and they used it with the wrong movements of figures, car, background around them.

      The head-forward “snap” was obviously also a feature of the limits of what they had to work with; in choosing to telescope the time frame and rework the movements of Kennedy (and others), the fact his head went forward briefly during one shot ended up mistakenly left in.

      As to Bugliosi: there is no need to read it from the point of view of getting the gist of the case.

      Kennedy had a backbone; any shot near the spine to center front had to go through that and could not, though it could deflect up or down. So there was at least a set of two shooters.

      Oswald’s two shirts are on the doorwayman in the Altgens; he was caught on film watching the shooting.

      And the Zapruder film has items with impossible blur in context, and impossible lack of lens distortion. The film was faked, mostly frame by frame.

      Bugliosi gets none of this. His basic premise is untied.
      The items are “fringe” in the JFK community, only because of allegiance to mistakes in what motivated these people to become conspiracy theorists (a mistake about why the back-and-to-the-left motion occurs in the film), and lack of understanding of the arguments.

        1. Clare was observing that the attempts to explain how the back-and-to-the-left motion was an effect of a shot from behind were inconsequential, given that we know what happened to the film and how it was done. When they revised the film at Hawkeyeworks, two shots were merged: the shot to the back of his head (where he slumped forward) and the shot to the right temple (after Jackie had eased him back up and was looking him right in the face, which caused him to slump to the side). They took out too many frames and created–my guess is unintentionally–and the result was the violent back-and-to-the-left motion we see in the extant film. I discuss this in detail in “JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why”.

          1. When it happened, the only film the public was allowed to see was the rear view of the Limo….I don’t know where that film is today; probably destroyed. That film showed the brake lights, JFK being hit and violently being thrown to the left, while Jackie comes scrambling up onto the trunk…..then, Clint Hill blocks the view of her as he pushes her back over onto the seat. I believe Clint had to be laying over her with John underneath. I’m also sure Clint had to see the wound on the back of John’s head in that hurried, panic situation. Now, anybody with common sense knows the shot had to be close range, not a football field away. The Zapruder film didn’t come out for 10 years after that, and obviously knowing what I saw and what that joke of a film shows is no where near the truth. For one, the Limo wasn’t driving on the left side of the road, it was driving on the right side, so how did they get the lawn so close up to the side of the Limo ? The film would’ve depicted the asphalt roadway, curb and then the lawn ! Somebody’s chopped that film up ! Don’t believe it !

      1. Jeff, of course it is important. If how we know the film was absolutely faked is not widely known, then the people who fear throwing it out as a regular film will continue to mistake it as better than witnesses and forensics of the day, as has happened up to this point.

        The film is fake; the back-to-the-left motion cannot be part of a deliberate creation of conspiracy theorizing; it must be part of an unintended result, from having limited images of JFK from which to choose. Why? Because it actually led to MORE conspiracy theorizing, and also because we know from witnesses that none saw it but did see Jackie easing him up, and we now know how the film was faked (internal to most frames, things were moved around, taken from other frames, left out, etc.).

        1. We have to look at this two ways, either you are analyzing or theorizing ? I choose to call myself a Conspiracy Analyst, for it was a conspiracy…..we don’t have to theorize, we only have to analyze the events with the known available evidence. When someone calls you a theorist, you can bet the farm, they want to stick with the dumb down story of “lone-nut assassin”, when the facts show us more questions differently.
          I was talking to a Jewish friend, and I have many, both Americans and Israelis; they are different if you know it or not. I know his memory isn’t as good as mine so he tries to tell me the mob killed JFK; as if to sorta end the conversation with some kind of mutual agreement. ha ha. I told him, “yeah it was a mob alright, none less then a hundred and fifty thousand people; in fact, JFK was the only person who didn’t know about it !” He said, “what about Jack Ruby ?” I told him, “look it up on You-tube, he gave a speech of how the powers that be aren’t about to let you know the truth, I don’t know of any Mob having powers like that ?” “In fact, that was the last time I saw him ! For all I saw leaving the prison was a wooden coffin; it could’ve been nothing but rag-baloney in that thing for all I know; do you think the Mob could pull that off ?”
          He said, “Jeff, you should’ve been a historian; you missed your calling !” I told him, “Really ? I don’t wanna be classified with phoneys.”

          I can only say prophetically, this nation is going to go down into ruins because of the day, and if I’m wrong, tell me where we are today ?

  11. for jim fetzer, et al. . . allow me to begin with an historical anecdote.

    it was the mid-70’s. i was in nyc’s hunter college doing an internship at channel 5 wnew-tv newsroom (pre-rupert Murdoch). i was well regarded there. part of my job was to monitor the press release file and suggest what stories to cover.

    there was a press release from robert groden saying that he had a copy of the zapruder film to release which showed that there was a conspiracy to assassinate jfk. being into the whole jfk assassination thing after reading peter dale scott’s ramparts article, “from dallas to watergate, the longest coverup,” i suggested to the managing editor, hal levinson, that channel 5 cover the press conference, and we did. i attended as well. no other nyc tv or radio station showed up, to my knowledge. channel 5 fairly covered the conference on its newscast, and aired an objective story on the zapruder film as presented by groden. we had one million viewers who saw (that version of) the zapruder film before geraldo rivera (thankfully) brought the zapruder film to a national audience.

    i became acquainted with groden and invited him to give a presentation at hunter college, where i had a friend who could call the shots on how to spend student event money. the friend agreed (after my badgering) and groden suggested that he bring along jfk researcher harold weisberg whom groden highly regarded, to make a combined presentation. i said sure. it was weisberg who in his self-published “whitewash” series, had identified the figure in the doorway of the altgen’s photograph as lee harvey oswald, not billy lovelady, he of the bold striped shirt, as the warren commission claimed. to me, this assessment was as true as it was obvious–assuming as i did then, that the photo was authentic. so there was groden siding with weisberg on this point.

    the actual hunter college presentation, in circa 1975 or 1976, was lightly attended, due to the “coincidental” student protest vs the ending of free tuition at the city university of new york (cuny).

    as a result of my having contact with groden, my phone was OBVIOUSLY tapped and my mail OBVIOUSLY rifled thru. that lasted 90 days–which back then was what the authorities could get away with before having to procure a court order authorizing continuation. apparently they did not try or did not succeed in getting any such court order. the experience increased my pot paranoia and contributed to my getting off pot.

    so, from my own experience, i do believe that robert groden was a true hero in the early days of the zapruder film release.

    i have watched the short 10-minute video cited in the article above and found it compelling. it does appear to me that the zapruder film has been tampered with. with regard to groden, my take at this juncture was that he believed that he was given a true copy of the film. as to his stance now, it would be great if he would address the comments made in jim’s article also linked to in the article, in an interview here on truth and shadows.

    sometimes we as humans become too attached to our own positions and are reluctant to give them up. and there is also the matter of ego, which tho needed, can become distorted at times. perhaps that is what is going on with groden. i can only hazard a guess. then again, maybe groden is right and fetzer is wrong. at channel 5, there was a bold sign above the exit that everyone, including the reporters, had to use: “There are at least two sides to every story. How many will you get?”

    i asked my fictitious friends here still hanging out on a a nearby brooklyn corner about all this. their comment was this: “so what if the zapruder film was real or fake? what the *uck are you gonna DO about it? where will all this get you?”

    to which i had my stock reply, “its not only important to know who you are but where you are. america is a fascist state. there was a coup de etat on november 22nd 1963.”

    to which their response was, “tell me something i don’t know.”

    so jim, i ask you, let’s assume that everything you say in the article and links above are true and accurate, “what the *uck are you gonna DO about it?”

    1. (1) The truth is important in its own right: we are entitled to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

      (2) The event had consequences, including a succession of presidents who would never have had that office but for the death of JFK.

      (3) LBJ reversed him on Vietnam, the CIA, the oil depletion allowance, the FED and was supportive of Israel’s development of nuclear weapons.

      (4) The country was shifted strongly to the right by the series of assassinations, including JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK.

      (5) To solve a problem, you must first understand it. This one has been a very tough nut to crack, because of the complicity of the government and the media in covering it up.

      (6) Those who have raised this question seem to understand and appreciate none of the above. If we are to avoid being played for suckers again, we must learn from our past.

      (7) Sad to say, there has been a succession of fabricated events, from Oklahoma City to Sandy Hook to the Boston bombing, all of which are more transparent than JFK.

      “Those who ignore the past are destined to repeat it”–George Santayana (paraphrased)

      1. on a deeper look at all this, i’m not so impressed. here’s why.

        i watched the link from the article that takes you here –> in the descriptions of frames or clips, i’m being told this is what we see and frankly i’m not seeing what’s being described. if i were with the narrator live i’d have to say “stop! where? show me that.” maybe it takes a trained eye, but just visiting the site and having that experience makes me not want to bother. anyone else here have that experience?

        here is a literary example of what i’m talking about, above. in craig’s article there is mention of 60 or 40 or hundreds of witnesses who saw this or saw that–with no links to the claimed supposed testimony. this reduces credibility. worse, in one of jim’s veterans today articles i came across here –> jim writes, “A Summary of Proof Beyond the simplest proof, frame 374, we have not only (1) more than 60 witnesses who reported seeing the limousine either slow dramatically or come to a complete stop (where it slowed dramatically as it came to a complete stop)…” but when i used the hypertext link provided by jim to get to the anticipated list of the “more than 60 witnesses,” i get taken here where the first witness says nothing about the limo slowing or stopping. i scrolled down and spot-checked what a dozen of the witnesses are quoted as saying. NONE were saying anything about the limo stopping or slowing. maybe my 0-13 random survey is just me missing things again (like with the film evidence, as described above), but at a minimum, a hypertext link to “more than 60 witnesses who reported seeing the limousine either slow dramatically or come to a complete stop (where it slowed dramatically as it came to a complete stop)…” should take you to a list of those 60 witnesses and no others. similarly, the descriptions of the film altering need to be just as precise to the untrained eye, in order to be effective. i’m sure that’s hard to do, but unless and until it’s done, i, for one, come away unimpressed, unpersuaded, and ultimately suspicious.

        on another issue, jim at some point in the discussion here says that he has answered the chain of custody issue. where might that be, jim, exactly? i agree with those here who say this is an important issue.


        1. Such stunning incompetence. The “What happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak” run 116 pages. The discussion of the limo stop being on page 79. I have no idea what you are doing here since you seem to be incapable of serious research. How many of the sources I have cited have you actually read–not taken a quick look, as in this case, but ACTUALLY READ? The answer, I suspect, is NONE. The Costella visual tutorial is a completely brilliant piece of work. “None so blind as those who will not see!” That’s you.

        2. Well, the early film, whether it was the Nix film or whatever, I can’t remember the name of it, showed the Limo stopped….period. If you go by a survey, you’ll be lost in a whirlwind of BS. When in 72 or 73 when the Zapruder film came out, I knew instantly it was all BS; it looked like the producers of the Wizard of Oz got a-hold of it ! It’s a shame they didn’t zoom-in on the fatal shot, that would really be convincing then ! lol. Don’t buy into propaganda, people weren’t running to the grassy knoll because they heard shots from the TSBD building, they were trying to see who was up on the Knoll parking lot.

      2. And Dennis, not seeing WHAT, exactly, in the Costella intro pages? The lens distortion is missing for the Sign and Lamppost; the blur is wrong in the Life mag frame included in the film, compared to the timing of panning and car movements in the surrounding film. And the overlap problem is explained and then obvious, for one frame of Clint Hill hanging onto that limo.

      3. And no, Dennis, you cannot write off Jim’s work at all, simply for a feeling of “dislike” from you about him. You can only write off a person, as someone you choose not to like, but not their work based on that.

        Do better.
        And when you do, you will find not only is the material solid; but actually Jim is eminently likeable, just pissed off at half-baked conclusions, even when come by honestly (you really do seem to be confused honestly, not just maliciously), and sloppy work or incomplete dedication to finding a full answer.

      4. i’m not writing off jim’s work, clare, i’m writing him off. given how obnoxious he is, i’d rather not be bothered with anything he has to say. further, i don’t trust people with attitudes like that. he might as well be on the jref forum, which houses arrogant a**holes with the same attitude, personal attacks, avoidance techniques, etc. as jim has displayed here. as we say in brooklyn, f*** him.

      5. Dennis, I am all for being nice to you but you, in fact, are the one at fault here, I say nicely. Now, learn the tutorial properly, which you have not done, and look at Craig McKee’s comments re. Limo stop, and Jim’s suggestion of the full list. Due diligence — or it is you who is getting nowhere, not the material.

      6. Dennis, If I may slide in here and address your comment of December 16, 2013 – 10:00 AM;

        I took a list of 22 witnesses from Costella’s page that claimed the limo slowed almost to or to a complete stop. This is not 60. I don’t know where the 60 figure comes from, and perhaps Mr Fetzer can be more specific – perhaps list them here for you [?].

        Nevertheless, 22 witnesses is a pretty good number of people who claim this. If there is hyperbole in the expression of numbers that is unfortunate and reflects badly on the person saying it.

        As you well know I am not a fan of Fetzer, but I do think he has covered the issue of custody – rather that issue is covered by Horne and Fetzer helps bring it forward.
        I was hesitant as you are now, thinking it may be a waste of time following this issue as put forth by the group Fetzer is working with here. But I found that when I did study it closely that there is something to it. It is really not as complex as it seems, and perhaps it seems so complex because of lack of clarity in the presentation. This can be due to being absorbed in the subject deeply for so long that it is forgotten that those new to it aren’t going to automatically get it, or jump to it without some persuasive simple points to begin with.

        I suggest going to this page:

        Go to the bottom and listen to the interview with Douglas Horne – the first block of dual gray with a black speaker icon and a black forward arrow. The issue of where the original split 8mm film shot by Zapruder was developed in Dallas – but another unsplit 16mm that was a dupe of that went to “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester where it was used to create the now extant film created with an optical printer.

        All of the people involved and the chain of possession of both the original Z-film, and the duped 16mm unsplit copy is detailed there. My advice to you is to take the time to read that page and listen to the interview.


        1. Since you are obtaining a copy of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), you will find that the third chapter is entitled, “59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street”, by Vincent Palamara, who is the leading expert on the Secret Service in the world.

          Until this crappy post from Dennis, I think everyone would agree that I have been a model citizen on this forum. It is absolutely true I do not suffer fools gladly, where his posts this late in the game were careless, sloppy and unwarranted.

    2. “as a result of my having contact with groden, my phone was OBVIOUSLY tapped and my mail OBVIOUSLY rifled thru. that lasted 90 days…

      “so, from my own experience, i do believe that robert groden was a true hero in the early days of the zapruder film release.”


      I agree with you and welcome your contribution to this discussion including learning of your personal experience! My problem with this blog discussion is the starting point. Groden was not even mentioned in the story and so the story forgot history.

      I am not predicting Groden’s reaction if he is asked to be interviewed but I would respect either a proper “thanks” or “thanks but no thanks”. He obviously has a lot on his plate, what with his new book just out.

      1. Paul, how can you complain when Craig adopted the point of view that he regarded as most interesting and important and when I have cited an article in which I go through Groden’s position, point by point? What value is there in citing someone who has no good reasons for holding the claim the film is authentic? If Groden or Thompson or you could refute my arguments, you or they would have done so. Their silence is deafening. I can’t recall ever encountering someone who was so adoring of those he regards as “experts” without knowing the score. You don’t even know that I organized a separate 50th observance conference in Santa Barbara for 22 November 2013. You continue to reveal your ignorance about the film and about me with every new post.

        What I have explained about Groden is so interesting that everyone should read this TWICE:

        The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden”

      2. When they asked the Russians about who they suspected killed Kennedy, they replied, “it was coincidence that killed him.” I was over in China witnessing how they had an elaborate cell phone system when ours was antiquated and bulky….yeah, women were wearing lockets that were cell phones…..about 1″ square.

        Knowing how film works and knowing that sound was available, it’s just a wonderful coincidence the public; especially Zapruder, with a very expensive camera, didn’t have audio ! Some even wondered if he had inside information of the big event taking place at Dealey Plaza. For an old man who stumbled, he got around and certainly had a wonderful view too. JFK wasn’t suppose to go down Dealey Plaza, that’s why there were so few of people on the other side of the lawn….I wonder why ? He was suppose to travel through Elm Street, but others had a different plan, that’s why they wanted all the Secret Service covering LBJ in back and not covering JFK…..not even the motorcycled Police.

      3. Paul,

        The intention of this article was not to present all the evidence on all sides concerning the Zapruder film; it was an interview with someone who has a profile within the JFK research community to get their take on where the strongest evidence of a conspiracy lies. When you label a story “an interview with,” it is clear that you are focusing on that person, not looking at all sides of a particular issue. (I attempted to connect with a number of others, including James Douglass and Mark Lane, but did not receive answers.)

        If the arguments against alteration are so clear, then I wonder why no one is advancing any of those arguments here. After watching the presentations by Costella, White, Lifton, Fetzer, and others I have certainly had doubts raised in my mind about the absolute authenticity of the Zapruder film, but I remain open to other arguments. My mind is far from made up. If Mr. Groden is willing to talk to me then he will get fair and respectful treatment, which I give to anyone I interview.

        1. Yeah, all interviews with various high profile people who weren’t exactly witnesses got fame and notoriety, the classic was Arlen Specter with his so called “mystery bullet theory.” He’s gone now and good riddance, that was nothing but a stupid theory, and he certainly wasn’t a witness to be anything accountable to the investigation. These obstructionists ruined the whole seat of Justice throughout the ’60s, ripping-off the public with their notoriety. Since they’ve died, the idiots now have Free speech zones they enforce on the real truth of the matter. No matter if you get to the truth, they’ll call it a lie by either having you locked up or taking a scenic view of the Patapsco River in the middle of the night …..with your life preserver on!

  12. Dennis, I tend to agree about Groden’s blindness from getting overattached to his own wish to be honest, rather than that he is an outright agent or anything.

    On the other hand, what are we to DO is a question which is not actually useful. One thing being done is absolute clarity on the issues: when people say, “Tell me something I don’t know,” they usually are NOT in fact knowing for sure. If they read and mock conspiracy theory (a technical term) about JFK’s death at all, then they do not KNOW how they know.

    Getting more people aware of exactly how we know the faking went on means more are armed with surety.

    As to those who wish to gloss over the importance of knowing, well, we can remind them that they have to fight that sort of thing now, and stay clearer when meeting those who are unsure.

    Believe me, there are plenty of people who do NOT accept surety about this issue, as part of real, discussable history.

    People will find things to “DO” about it. Let them. WE can only do what we are doing: making people aware of the simple, and technical aspects of knowing, and continue work in activism on different things we might not have engaged in before we knew.

    If they ask, then tell them that: use your knowledge to change to what you give your charitable dollars, time, or letters of criticism politically.
    Best wishes.

    1. clare,

      re: “what are we to DO is a question which is not actually useful.” are you joking? we are not to look for what can be done about JFK, RFK, MLK, 9/11, etc.? simply just write and talk, and go ’round and ’round in circles debating each other on the specifics of the JFK assassination?

      re: “People will find things to ‘DO’ about it.” will they? like what?

      “Let them?????”

      you add, “WE can only do what we are doing: making people aware of the simple, and technical aspects of knowing [huh?], and continue work in activism on different things we might not have engaged in before we knew them.” what activism? what things? would these (thus-far) unidentified “things” not be something you are DOing?

      back in the 70s what people were trying to DO was get congress to investigate the JFK assassination. watergate had given us hope. we were hopelessly naive. eventually the house select committee on assassinations (hsca) was formed, but it out to be a limited hangout. still, hsca concluded that there was probably a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. yet nothing was DONE about it. think about that. a house committee finds that the assassination of the president of the u.s. probably involved a conspiracy, and the government does nothing about it.

      but at least oliver stone made JFK.

      in the article above, craig writes, “I asked Fetzer what he thought that the perpetrators of 9/11 had learned from how the JFK assassination and subsequent cover-up had played out:

      ‘It taught them how you can get away with practically anything,’ he said.” agreed. there is pretty much nothing we can DO to stop them. but why not look for ways?

      jim adds, “The American public is so gullible…”

      in point of fact, i don’t think the american public is “so gullible.” if the polls are correct, despite all the unrelenting propaganda to the contrary, most people believe that there was a conspiracy to murder JFK. rather than gullibility, it’s more a matter of feeling powerless to do anything about the state of affairs we find ourselves in.

      and so i ask, what can we do? a question you find “not actually useful.” in short, we disagree. it’s a very tough question to answer, but i submit that IS useful to try and come up with some ideas on WHAT TO DO to escape from the madness. and then execute.

      here’s one idea:

      and another:

      state secession might be another.

      in the short run, yes, agreed, we can donate dollars and/or time to well chosen causes, and speak up as necessary, as many of us already do here, and elsewhere.

      to each his/her own.

      1. You misunderstand what I said there about what we “DO” as not important. I explained it: I meant that telling people specifics to do is less useful than giving them the proofs clearly, unequivocally, and letting them find their things to do.

        I do many things. One thing I mentioned, if people ask that, about what they can “DO”, is to change what charities they give to, look at what lobby groups to support or challenge, people we write to, radio shows we call in to, conversations we have and change what we say to them: use only what our vaster knowledge shows us is important in their work and ignore what they do or challenge them on what they do which is blind to part of the picture.

        I am involved, for example, with and in my work for lobby groups and charities, I speak differently now about some issues, as well as consider some people not nuts whom I would have before I knew more.

        1. clare,
          re: “You misunderstand what I said there about what we “DO” as not important. I explained it: I meant that telling people specifics to do is less useful than giving them the proofs clearly, unequivocally, and letting them find their things to do.”

          i didn’t misunderstand. you mis-stated.

          i like what you DO.


    1. Yeah, and as they say, tell a lie big enough, often enough, and everyone will believe it. Oswald never fired a rifle period, he was a 24 year old boy trying to become a professional CIA agent; that was his dream. The trajectory of the first bullet, through his neck came from a low area in back, and the fatal bullet came from the right side front of the Limo. There was at least 11 shots unaccounted for; for a total of 14 shots altogether. This is why there is no sound in this video.

      1. Jeff, there is no sound in the video because it is ‘film’ – 8mm movie – they didn’t have sound recording film camera’s back then.


      2. Indeed, 8mm cameras with sound were expensive. Back when I was still a twinkle in my late father’s eye, he did a round-the-world business trip for his company. He happened to be at the Tokoyo airport in 1961 or 2 when RFK — then attorney general for JFK — came for a visit. Cutting-edge technophile that Dad was, he had his 8mm and recorded RFK’s arrival. One of my projects from two summers ago was to get digitized all of the old 8mm, reel-to-reel, slides, negatives, and pictures. That little 30 second snippet was among the gems. //

  13. One thought I had about this whole issue is that the chain of custody for the Zapruder film is very important for a few reasons. I would like to know about that chain of custody in detail because I am not sure which “version” of the film we are talking about in the first place. I also would like to know the chain of custody up until now because I have a concern that has not been dealt with to my satisfaction.

    My concern is that the film could have been altered by the government, by Time Life, or by the CIA but also it could have been altered later by other entities and presented as though it were the film as it existed once getting it from Time Life etc. In other words how do we know it wasn’t altered twice or even three times? I would like to know details specific to what exact film Fetzer is talking about first and then secondly I would like to know that films chain of custody up to today. Can that even be established? I don’t know if it can but it opens up some serious issues with the whole fakery analysis. I agree there is at least one difinitive sign that an unknown number of frames are missing from the film I saw linked to in this thread. What I do NOT know is the chain of custody of that film. I therefore cannot say who altered the film or how many times it was altered or when those alterations took place. I cannot therefore know the motivation for the alterations. In other words perhaps the film was altered in order to supress as much as possible evidence that the fatal shot came from the front. The bottom line for me is chain of custody for the film under discussion because for all I know Fetzer edited the one under discussion. I am not saying that is the case but I am saying chain of custody is critical to get to the bottom of this.

    One final thing I will say is that compositing layers on a film like the Z-film would be very difficult to do and very painstaking. I do not think it could be done quickly or easily. Signs of compositing would be difficult to remove. VERY difficult.

    1. You cannot be a very serious person. I have given you article after article about this. You and Tink Thompson seem to be singing from the same hymnal. Why don’t you do some research of your own? There is one extant film, which has been published in several versions, where the “Costella Combined Cut” is the best of the lot.

      If you can produce ANY EVIDENCE to suggest there are multiple DISTINCT VERSIONS of the film, produce it. And, when Craig McKee suggests you watch the Zapruder film symposium I organized and moderated in Duluth, WHY DON’T YOU DO THAT? I am astonished at the astonishing superficiality of your involvement.

      Have you bothered to read, “The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden”, where I outline eight lines of proof that the film has been massively edited? On the origin of the extant copy, here is what is known about the chronology, as I have explained above:

      US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication”

      Since I have found that citing links does not work with most who comment here, please know that the original film was taken to the NPIC Saturday, 23 November 1963. It was an 8mm split film developed in Dallas. They had to go out and buy a projector to view it.

      The substitute was brought there on Sunday, 24 November 1963. It was a 16mm, not yet split film that had been developed in Rochester, where the CIA has a secret photo and film lab known as “Hawkeyeworks”. Excellent work has been done on this by Douglas Horne:

      “The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration” (with Douglas P. Horne)

      “The Two NPCI Zapruder Film Events: Analysis and Implications” (with Douglas P. Horne)

      Here’s another article of mine that addresses these issues, which he might also want to read. The answer to the question, of course, is “No!”, because no one filmed a film that was created in a laboratory. If Ruffadam has more questions, I would be glad to address them.

      “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?”

      Perhaps you could express yourself CONDITIONALLY. IF the film that Jim says is the extant film IS the extant film and IF what he and Doug Horne tell us about its chain of possession is accurate, THEN my inference would be . . . ? Your attitude is a bit much

      1. “The answer to the question, of course, is “No!”, because no one filmed a film that was created in a laboratory. If Ruffadam has more questions, I would be glad to address them.”
        ~James Fetzer

        This is an interesting comment from Fetzer. “no one filmed” this film? What is the original footage then? SOMEONE had to have shot actual footage of the motorcade.
        The next question would be, why would the perps do that? Why get a murder you are responsible for on film? Especially on to be blamed on a single patsy, when it is actually going to be done by teams of riflemen. Anyone would know without a doubt that it wasn’t going to “look like” the cover story.

        If Zapruder didn’t film it, and a covert film was shot by agents, nobody would know it had been filmed. Why go to the effort to shoot something you are going to have to get into and manipulate? Why go public with something like that at all?

        All of this leads to the logical conclusion that Zapruder shot an 8mm home movie that day and caught the killing on film. Trying to clean up this mess after the horse was out of the barn is what happened. Of course the media, Life Magazine in particular was in on it.

        The logic of this breaks down at the core of the argument. Someone shot a motion picture of the assassination. If it was the Feds, no one would ever have known about it.


        1. How many times do I have to explain these things? The extant film is a fabrication made up of authentic footage that was altered in many ways, some by simple exclusion (of the limo stop and Clint Hill’s actions, for example), others by additions to the original frames (such as by adding in the “blob” and the blood spray) and others by removals (such as the brains and debris across the trunk). I have explained all of this–and only a nitwit or a shill would post a comment of the inferior quality of those coming from this despicable source. The final product was created in a film laboratory known as “Hawkeyeworks”, which is in Rochester adjacent to Kodak Headquarters. No one “filmed it” because it is a fake film.

          1. Well, I remember the news saying the filming was done and holed up somewhere for safe keeping. Later, Life Magazine said they had it, showing the shot that hit JFK’s neck, (this was suppose to claim all shots came from the rear.) and then it disappeared for at least 10 years. So, to declare it was all fabricated is shear nonsense, too many facts in the doctored mess to be shoved off as being 100% fabrication. The parts that were fabricated was the head shot and the lawn area of the drivers side, as well as the movements of Jacquelin and Clint Hill. Meantime the media was throwing out the theories of the Umbrella Man along with the Ding Dong from Miami….this was twisting out all kinds of theories with Marilyn Monroe and the Mob stories. Don’t worry, Jim Garrison said it right…..the government did it.

            1. John explains this in his tutorial, but I can explain it again here. The camera created films that have “ghost panels” that are double-exposures linking one frame with others. The fakery would have been obvious unless the ghost panels were recreated, which they had to do in the lab by reshooting each frame in sequence to create new ghost panels. This is the reason the film as a whole is a fabrication: it had to be reshot in the lab after the alterations had been made to individual frames. So Zapruder did not film “the Zapruder film”, because it was “filmed” in a photo lab. If there are other unanswered questions, just let me know.

              1. Of course all the videos including the still photos were doctored over the years, which points out it was all a total Conspiracy paid for by the American Taxpayers.
                Do ya think Oswald could’ve funded it ? Oh, excuse me, was that his real name ?
                Wasn’t John Connolly, Governor of Texas, Secretary of the Navy while Oswald was in Russia ?
                Back then, wasn’t the Marines under the Secretary of the Navy ?
                Wasn’t Oswald a Marine ?
                The Secretary of State gives a loan to Oswald to return back to the U.S. with his wife and child ?
                What’s the kicker in all of this, is they have us questioning the validity of the films and photos of the most atrocious crime on earth, and justice, to this very day has not been served. And to think about it, I lived through that mess !
                Keep in mind when you reflect on that mess back then, a hundred bucks would get you a flight to Europe, tell me what will it buy you today.

      2. Those who would say it is “not fabricated” but has parts which were, miss the point. The point is that there was original footage; the exant film was completely reworked and reshot, but differently in different parts. For the limo turn, that was cut out, and in the final film, by the way, there is NO SPLICE — it is a copy, not an original. Why? Because frame by frame considerations were made, changes, etc., and in some areas whole timing was changed, some it was partial and figures were moved or repeated without much movement.

        The original film went through multiple alterations (original cuts, changes) and we have evidence of these mock-ups being shown to different folk, who saw film called Zapruder film, each one with events slightly different than the others saw, and none of them what we have now.

        As to disagreeing with Stone or Douglass:

        Neither is an expert on how we know about the absolute inside-frame alterations, i.e., the blur issue and the lens distortion issue. As such, they have their gifts to make to JFK assassination awareness, but are not knowledgeable about everything.

        Agreed with Jim: it would be better to express your attitude conditionally until you actually understand the film alteration proofs and what constitutes a “fake film”, as distinct from a camera original (and fake does not mean it did not use any Zapruder content — most of it is, but completely changed in salient aspects, though there is some painting-in).

    2. Ruffadam makes some good points on December 13, 2013 – 2:47 PM.

      I recall years ago, before digital editing became common, reading an article that was illustrated with visual references to the points being made, that showed some very clumsy “painting” on several frames. Some of it was of Jackie’s face, and the ‘blob’ at Kennedy’s right temple area. And these were from the National Archives.

      So the Z-film has had controversy from at least that far back. But the stuff detailed was obviously amateur faking. There was none of this high-class stuff we are talking about today.

      Something tells me Adam is on to something here, about this new imagery being perhaps the work of others with newer more sophisticated tools. There is something fishy about this whole expedition. If a agitprop campaign is being waged, it would be something of deep complexity like were are facing with this situation.

      Yes, maybe “the government” is behind this — but in a far different manner than we are being led to believe. {???} I have problems and suspicions about this…

      Some of it has to do with ‘anonymous sources’ who are said to have seen some entirely different film. Hearsay always puts up a red flag for me. And certain “known” sources raise those red flags as well.


  14. And is there some point at which you are actually going to address the proofs that the film has been altered instead of distracting and baseless questions about the chain of custody?

    (1) Frame 374 shows the blow-out at the back of the head, while earlier frames do not.

    (2) Hollywood experts have been appalled at the crudity with which it was blacked out.

    (3) The “blob” shows brains gushing out to the right/front, but that did not in fact occur.

    (4) The blood spray dissipates far to rapidly to be real, one of many of Costella’s points.

    (5) There are some 60 witnesses to the dramatic slowing or coming to a complete halt.

    (6) Others have seen a more complete film, in which it comes to a complete, abrupt halt.

    (7) The also report two shots to the head, one from behind and one from the right/front.

    (8) He slumps forward in response to the first and Jackie eases him up and looks at him.

    (9) He is hit in the right temple and his brains are blown out to the left/rear with great force.

    (10) Motorcycle Office Bobby Hargis, riding to the left/rear, initially thinks he has been shot.

    (11) The cranial X-rays were altered to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head.

    (12) Comparing them with frame 374, it is evident that the patch was to conceal the wound.

    There is much more evidence that establishes the film has been altered. I’m having a hard time appreciating why you are running away from direct and obvious proofs. Why is that?

    1. “And is there some point at which you are actually going to address the proofs that the film has been altered instead of distracting and baseless questions about the chain of custody?”~Fetzer

      Since when is chain of custody a “baseless question”? Unless that is known we have no way to tell who made these alterations. The point is that we can suppose that there was early alterations made in the 60s, before anyone had seen the film. But we have no way of knowing what further alterations may have taken place later, when digital editing became so ubiquitous . That is the problem with all of this web stuff and YouTubes. We are NOT looking at original film footage – we are looking at things ANYBODY could have made…
      Like that missile hitting the Pentagon that was such a rage for a time.


      1. Well, I am hardly surprised that someone like you would want to play a game that has long-since been abandoned. There are no “anonymous sources”, since I name three who have seen the film in “JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why”, specifically, William Reymond, Rich DellaRosa and Gregory Burnham. I have given summaries of their testimony in several places, including of Rich DellaRose in Appendix E of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Why don’t you try and do some homework?

        The chain-of-possession argument was decisively defeated by the investigations of the Assassination Records Review Board, on which Doug Horne served as Senior Analyst for Military Records. I have cited three articles in which the discoveries about the NPIC events are recorded. The original was taken there on Saturday. It was an 8mm, already split film, developed in Dallas. The replacement was taken there on Sunday. It was a 16mm, unsplit film that was developed in Rochester by the CIA.

        It is unsurprising that Ruffadam and this other person would cling to something that is sufficiently intangible they can attempt to make a case, even when that case has no basis in fact. WE KNOW THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. But we also know a wide-range of proofs of fakery, some as simple, direct and blatant as that the blow-out can be seen in frame 374, but has been covered up in earlier frames. And that the Nix and the Zapruder films are inconsistent, yet purport to be of the same event. We know the film is a fraud, while some want to create a fake case on behalf of a fake film.

        1. I agree. I also want to know how this old man managed to get to Dealey Plaza when the papers had a map showing the procession was to go straight down Elm Street, not turning off onto Dealey plaza ? As far as audio goes, all the movie industry was using sound on their films ? They deliberately turned that film into a hand-cranked 8mm camera.

      2. >”How many times do I have to explain these things?”~Jim Fetzer, December 13, 2013 at 8:50 PM

        Until you can explain them without contradicting yourself:

        “no one filmed a film that was created in a laboratory.” — “baseless questions about the chain of custody..”

        Direct quotes Jim. They are given back to you in context, in the full sentences that you wrote them.

        Now explain this: Why did these film magicians take out the head-shot from the rear, and leave in the damning head-shot from the front?

        They are so good at special effects cinematography with 1960’s technology that they can make travelling mattes of the background and fit the limo in so that it doesn’t stop. BUT they take out a rear shot to the head {which fits the official story} but they show the head-shot from the front.

        Also, are you saying that Zapruter shot the film? Are you saying he didn’t shoot the film? Which is it?


        1. Amazing, I’ve followed this nonsense of twisting up the facts since it happened, and still amazes me of how a cross analysis trumps up another analytical theory. The film, just a small clip of it appeared on television where the whole side of the Limo was viewable, even with reflections of the by-standers in the rocker-panel…, you don’t even see the rocker-panel ! And just to think, we’re wondering if its been doctored ? lol. The lady in Red has changed her position and appearance so much, she now looks like a dwarf ! I think people better wake up, there’s a war going on.

    2. Hybridrogue1, the head shot from the rear did not leave much evidence; the head shot from the front did (it blew out the back); the body was being lifted, and in fact they took out most of BOTH shots.

      As to your other question for Jim, it doesn’t have to be answered by him either:

      NO-ONE SHOT THIS FILM in the simple sense of getting this result. When he says Zapruder didn’t shoot it, he means THIS FILM, extant. Yes, Zapruder shot the basics they used; in that sense, Zapruder shot the film. You know that is what the expression means that Zapruder didn’t shoot it.

      There is ALSO some evidence that background shots were done earlier in the day (the shadows are odd for the time of day in some shots), and of course some items IN the film were added from some other filming session (such as the main crowd).


      Mary Poppins film has telltale signs but was complexly done; the latter is the point, that the basic technology to do compositry into frames was known at the time), and there ARE TELLTALE SIGNS of such faking techniques in the Z film extant version — which is the point of Costella.

      Stop deflecting.
      Please get to the way we know it was faked. That is all that matters here.

  15. I have to admit, one reason I in the past dismissed the mere idea of the Zapruder film being altered is because of the “back and to the left” which points to a conspiracy. Another reason is because I assumed that photo shop and video manipulation back then would have had to be in an embryonic state. However, that’s not true. A little bit of searching shows that altered photos go WAY back.

    Some of those examples, particularly the early ones, are not actually fake photos, but simply that the scene in the photo was staged. However, check this out for example:

    Dickens in America:

    Yes, photo retouching was in existence in the mid 1800’s! In light of that, it’s not a stretch to think that a full century later, an extremely convincing alteration like the seemingly altered Zapruder film is possible!

    And you’ll love this one from 1933: Baby Adolf.

    Clearly, by the 1960’s, far more fakery technology, and with moving pictures, was possible.

    PS I simply googled “earliest fake photographs.”

    1. I had a long career in special effects cinema Mr Syed. I have been into it since I was a kid. I am no stranger to the technology and when it began – almost as early as photography itself.
      Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was fooled by the crude forgery of the Cottingley fairy photographs back in his day…

      Perhaps it is my intimate familiarity with the techniques of special effects that causes me to pause at the depths of the assertions made here. The fact that certain capabilities were around in the day does not assure that they were used to that extent in the Z-film. It has to make sense according to assuring a successful cover-up. As it is there are valid questions as to what they DIDN’T remove. Like I just mentioned above; ‘the shot from the front was left in while the shot from behind was removed’. Ask yourself if that makes any sense as far as the perpetrators of the crime are concerned.

      “Back and to the left” – Garrison. Why was this left in the film when the patsy was set-up as a shooter from behind. It took months of planning to get Oswald situated in that building. Surely the techs doing this work knew the cover story. This is why something seems fishy about this whole gambit to me.


      1. You say, “It has to make sense according to assuring a successful cover-up.”

        Are you saying that understanding the logic behind something is more important than evaluating the physical evidence? In other words, do we discount evidence because we don’t know why something was done? Many of us accept that a large plane flew north of the Citgo gas station and did not hit the Pentagon even though we don’t really know why the plane took that particular path (of course we know it had to avoid hitting any light poles).

        Things don’t always make sense (yet). But we still have to look at what the evidence tells us. Which is not to say that you can’t maintain your position on that basis.

      2. Actually, it makes a lot of sense, Craig and Hybridrogue. Sure, Kennedy ends up arcing to the left back, but they only had so much material to work with, could not use too many frames of his being shot several times (it would give away the game), and they tried to correct with a headwound going forward with crappy bloodspray which doesn’t work, but worked long enough to confound the issue.

        The fact is, sometimes what was not done or was done, in a crude remaking, is a kind of hurried set of excellent things along with errors noticed later.

        The back-to-the-left, seemingly so shocking, so counter to a conspiracy theory (used as the technical term there), actually is not so very odd. It was like a student’s essay which has a repeated paragraph, though the student felt the essay was perfect. It’s a blooper upon quiet reflection, such as when the teacher reads it, but the student may well have felt there was no major edit or choice which went wrong.

        No witnesses saw such a motion; but they did see Jackie ease Jack back up. The images of him in the car must come from that. Other than that, they would have had to show massively different actions and probably risk giving the game away. Or, shall we say, giving the game away more completely.

        It would seem, then, to be ironic that their calculated risk actually gave the game away, but with a misimpression which proved the general case — the misimpression being of a frontal shot creating a back-to-the-left motion, and the general case being the general case for conspiracy in high places.

      3. “Back and to the left” – Garrison. Why was this left in the film when the patsy was set-up as a shooter from behind.

        As I said before:

        So, the diabolical plan for the cover up (i.e. keep the waters muddy for a half century and counting) people would be to have a film which appears in real time to actually support the frontal shot / back-and-to-the-left view that is now the “mainstream” view within the truth community, but can also be seized upon later by “debunkers” as having been misinterpreted by “conspiracy theorists like Oliver Stone” when actually analyzed in super depth. Then, those who advocate that the Z film was altered can really dismissed as “fringe even within the JFK truth community.”

        They were thinking “long term” when orchestrating the cover up.

      4. “Are you saying that understanding the logic behind something is more important than evaluating the physical evidence?”~Craig McKee

        No, I am saying that evaluating the physical evidence should be done with an eye to motive. I haven’t spoken to the so-called “physical evidence” yet.

        People here talk about the film Mary Poppins – how advanced the special effects were in that film. But those techniques have telltale signs. Do you know what they are? Can you spot them? Can you show those same telltale signs in the Z-film?
        … … …
        “They were thinking “long term” when orchestrating the cover up.”~Adam Syed

        I think that is highly unlikely, that they would purposely give away the front head shot so they could confuse ‘conspiracy researchers’ for years, until finally more refined future techniques would give away what they really did. You give them much too much credit.


  16. What is “fishy” is your sequence of comments that never quite get around to addressing the evidence of fakery. You don’t talk about any of the lines of argument (1) though (8) with the exception of the “chain of custody”, where we know where and when and by whom the fakery was done. So I find it odious that you continue to post, claim you are an “expert”, yet you show not the least inclination to acknowledge the force of the arguments that I have made. It doesn’t surprise me at all, but reflects your role here, which should be apparent to all. Once more, he will obfuscate and prevaricate when he can’t come to grips with facts.

    1. Jim I am putting aside your indignation at my chain of custody remarks because you did not in fact address my point. So I am going to break it down another way as to what my concerns are.

      1. How long did the people who altered or reshot the film have to make the changes? Since you are claiming composting took place the time issue becomes important because each an every frame is different due to the movement of the camera and due to the movement of the subject(s). Composting is therefore very tedious and time consuming and so time becomes a real factor.

      2. How do any of us know that after this altered or reshot film left the custody of the fakers that it wasn’t destroyed or lost or hidden and we are today NOT looking at the same “faked” version as it existed back then?

      3. Who took it from the original fakers and how long did they have it? How do we know the new custodians of the “faked” film did not alter it further? Did they in turn hand it off to other entities and if so could they have altered it even further?

      Do you see the problem? I have no way of knowing that the film I am watching today is the same as it was when released from the custody of it’s first custodians. There is no way to be sure it hasn’t been altered after it left the control of the first custodians. I cannot say with any degree of certainty therefore who made the alterations in the film we are evaluating or for what reason.

      In the film posted above I agree that there is at least one clear sign that frames have been removed and I am not ruling out finding more alterations as I look further. (In case you missed that Jim I said the film has been altered to remove frames and I said that erlier too) How do I know for sure who removed those frames though? If it cannot be compared to the true original there is no longer any way to be sure about any of this. The bottom line for me is that unless the chain of custody can be nailed down I cannot say who altered the film or why nor can I determine when it was done.

      1. Ironically, the presentation by Josiah Thompson, “Why the Zapruder film is authentic?”, which you can access at provides an answer to your question–except for how a presumably authentic film could be internally inconsistent (if you compare frame 374 with frames 314, 315, 316, 317 and others), include the “blob” (bulging of the brains to the right/front, when that did not occur) and evidence of a “double-hit” (if you compare the motion forward from 312 to 313 versus the violent back-and-to-the-left motion in 313 to 317).

        It is fascinating that Josiah Thompson, who presented a detailed, scientific study of the “double-hit” phenomenon in his SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1966) , has been disavowing it of late, when it was the best part of his book. This effect was not due to acceleration but occurred because he was hit twice, once in the back of the head (and he slumped forward) then, after Jackie eased him up, in the right/temple (and he slumped to the left side). The motions in the film were independently verified by Richard Feynman at CalTech when Davis S. Lifton visited him there, as reported in BEST EVIDENCE (1980).

        So Thompson’s chain-of-custody argument creates a dilemma for those who are familiar with the witness testimony, the medical evidence, the ballistics and the internal features of the film. Since it includes internal inconsistencies and effects that did not occur, how can it be authentic? In other words, how can an authentic film of the events in Dealey Plaza have frames that show a blow-out to the back of his head and others that do not show that blow-out? or that show a bulging of brains to the right/front, which did not occur–where Jackie told us that, from the front, he looked just fine and where no medical evidence supports it?

        Not only was the “blob” painted in but so too was the blood spray. Even the Stemmons freeway sign has been “adjusted” in the extant film, as John P. Costella has explained in his visual film tutorial, “JFK Assassination Film Hoax: A Simple Introduction”, which is archived at So how can an authentic film include internal features that prove it is not authentic? That is the dilemma which Josiah Thompson has never been willing to address. Like a used-car salesman, he only presents the evidence that favors his side and never confronts the evidence he cannot be correct.

        Indeed, photos and films are only admissible as evidence in courts-of-law when they have been authenticated as accurate by those who took them. It is striking that Abe Zapruder has been equivocal about the extant film and has been puzzled by the images it presents. Moreover, we have some 60 witnesses who reported watching the limo slow dramatically or come to a complete halt, where it slowed dramatically AS it came to a complete halt. Check out their reports. And we have more witnesses coming forward who contradict what we see in the extant version of the Zapruder film, such as Toni Glover, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Scranton.

        When I explained that the Nix film is inconsistent with the Zapruder (because it shows Clint Hill moving closer to Jackie than we see in the Zapruder, even though presumably they are both showing the same event), I also discussed Professor Glover’s testimony about her own observations, made when she was standing on a low pillar at the corner of Houston and Elm. She followed JFK down the street and watched in horror as his head exploded apart, where brains and blood were all over the trunk of the limousine. If you haven’t read it, check out

        What she tells us is confirmed by the nausea induced in a Secret Service agent when he observed the brains and blood on the trunk while the limo was parked in Washington, D.C., which I discussed in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), pages 27-28. There is a mountain of proof that the film is a fabrication, where they had to reshoot each frame in a photo lab to create a sequence of ghost panels that would not give the game away. So Thompson shows that there was no possibility for ANYONE OTHER THAN THOSE WHO HAD CUSTODY OF THE FILM to have done any “funny business”, but he does not show THOSE WHO HAD CUSTODY were not complicit in faking a new version.

        And that, of course, is precisely what happened. Doug Horne was the Senior Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB and has reported the ARRB’s discovery that the original was taken to the NPIC on Saturday the 23rd as an 8mm, already split film, developed in Dallas, while the substitute was taken there on Sunday the 24th as a 16mm, unsplit film that was developed in Rochester near Kodak Headquarters at a secret film lab run by the CIA. So there is really no way around it. Either some of those who had custody of the film were complicit in facilitating its alteration or Zapruder took a miraculous film that is not only internally inconsistent but contradicted by witnesses, medical evidence and is even inconsistent with other films.

      2. You ask if we see the problem that you pose, namely that exactly who did any alterations cannot be known; at that point, the evidence for the Hawkeye Works lab comes into play, but also the motivation to alter it gives us the basic idea: CIA.

        Now, your other issue seems to be, here, that if there is no way to compare it to an original, we cannot be sure of the alterations; but indeed we can. We have witnesses and we have types of alteration. Given that blur was added/ created/ recreated improperly for the context of the film frames around the problem frame, we know that the frame with the wrong blur and the others had come from frames with less or more blur on the elements, and to what degree there were changes possible, they were made.

        For the limo turn from Houston onto Elm, we have a splice which is not physical in the extant film: there is no physical cut, so the film was a copy, though it is claimed to be an original.

        For the light pole and Stemmons sign, both of which have wrong lens distortion added compared to the frames they are in, we know they were added in or added back into frames where the other elements were changed around or added from elsewhere, and the sign and lamppost thus indicate that when we ask which is more accurate, Witnesses or film, we must generally give the benefit to the witnesses.

        So yes, we can know what happened, based on what the film does and does not contain, and where, compared to the witnesses.

        Your logic is flawed here.

    2. I asked YOU two specific questions Mr Fetzer, I did not ask the forum. Those questions for you are:

      “Now explain this: Why did these film magicians take out the head-shot from the rear, and leave in the damning head-shot from the front?”

      “are you saying that Zapruter shot the film? Are you saying he didn’t shoot the film? Which is it?”


      1. Oh yes, Zapruder was there, with his secretary and that was caught on other still photos too. I’d like to know how’d he managed to hold the camera with the shots going off behind him. The secretary said she had to help him hold the camera. How’d did he know to stand on a pedestal. in that area, to record the film without knowing something was suppose to happen ? You may call that perfect timing but the rewards he got and the notoriety tells me something different !!!

      2. The answer to the first question is that they were not rocket scientists, were working under extreme time-pressure and made mistakes. Since you are not even looking at the internal or the external proof that the extant film is a fake, I know that this is not a serious question on your part, which, of course, Clare Kuehn has already addressed.

        As for the second, since no one could have taken a film that includes contradictory images and is inconsistent with the witness, medical and other film evidence, we know it was not taken by Zapruder but was created in a film lab, where it was necessary to reshoot the sequence to recreate the “ghost panels” to avoid immediate exposure.

      3. “we know it was not taken by Zapruder but was created in a film lab, where it was necessary to reshoot the sequence to recreate the “ghost panels” to avoid immediate exposure.”~Fetzer

        I am not talking about what was done at a film lab Jim. I am asking who shot the original film. Are you or are you not saying that Zapruder did NOT shoot the original film?

        If Clare is saying that they used the rotoscope technique to create the masks, I am going to have to object. To hand etch these masks – especially in the time frame considered would certainly lead to ‘jiggle’.


  17. Creating a blue screen composite image STARTS by photographing a subject in front of an evenly lit, bright, pure blue (or green) background.

    Does anyone here grasp the significance of this fact of special effects? Because what is being asserted here is that these shots were starting with a full composition of elements in the shot. This complicates the procedure significantly. One has to now go in and REMOVE elements. This entails creating masks for all moving objects in the field of vision.

    For instance, the car and occupants – both Kennedy and Jackie are above the edge of the open limo. So creating a mask of the moving car is one thing in itself – but you also have the portions of the people in the car moving in their various positions.

    To create a successful effect, you have to create a mask of all of the movement in the foreground action that is then used to lay over and create a blockage of the background – so that it does not ‘bleed through’ the images in the foreground. This would be the street, the curb, and the people moving around in the grassy area, as well as the grass background. If this mask isn’t perfect, you will see the background movement in the objects in the foreground. The edges have to be perfect or parts of the people in the foreground will be cut-off.

    So it must be understood that ‘blue screen’ is not a possibility for this sequence. The mask has to be hand done, one frame at a time. You have to make a silhouette of the whole of the car and occupants. The next step is to use this mask to make a shot of the background with this blanked out area traveling along in front of it. So you are now, two generations away before you make your final pass of adding the car and occupants over the prepared background. That is three generations of added grain to your shot.

    This is not to say that I do not think the footage was doctored in some areas. What I am trying to do is to give some indication of the technical difficulties in achieving what is being asserted.

    You have a lot of incidental movement in both the foreground and background to deal with.


    1. So without even studying the multiple proofs that the film is a fabrication, you are going to argue that, EVEN IF IT HAS BEEN ALTERED, IT CANNOT HAVE BEEN ALTERED? It is an elementary principle of reasoning that the actual must be possible. Since they actually did alter the film, it must have been possible to have done that. And if you had watched the presentations from the Zapruder film symposium held in Duluth (2003), as Craig McKee suggested at the beginning, you would not be trying to fake your way to defend a fake film.

      1. I think, Jim, he is assuming there would be bleed-through or clear edges for the masking. In fact, however, with a bit of extra exposure or underexposure, such things would be harder to detect. He also claims there would be generations, i.e., graininess, but he is not aware of the single projection which is how they did this: multiple cameras all projecting part of the image, with one film camera recording. I stated elsewhere they did it onto a screen, but that part I cannot recall, actuall. It has been a while since I read it all.

      2. “So without even studying the multiple proofs that the film is a fabrication, you are going to argue that, EVEN IF IT HAS BEEN ALTERED, IT CANNOT HAVE BEEN ALTERED?”~Fetzer

        WHAT?? Of course not. what I am saying is that it is feasible to alter the film in that day in certain ways, and not in others. I am not arguing that the film wasn’t altered or tampered with. It is the extent to which you are claiming that isn’t adding up for me.

        I am asking you technical questions Jim, because I want to know whether you know what you are talking about, or just parroting others.

        Now the question is still on the table. If Zapruder did not take the original film that was then manipulated in the lab, who did?


        1. This man is making so many garbled posts that have nothing to do with the case that there can be no doubt that he is simply here to attempt to sow confusion. Nothing was done the day of the shooting, but the substitute was brought to the NPIC on Sunday the 24th. It was done in a sophisticated photo lab run by the CIA known as “Hawkeyeworks”, which is near Kodak Headquarters in Rochester. So your insinuations it was done that day or by using “a make shift set-up” are pointless and absurd. The original appears to have been taken by Zapruder, where Erwin Swartz, a colleague, reported having viewed it and watched JFK’s brians being blown out to the left-rear. I explain this in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). For a guy who claims to be an expert, I have heard nothing but rubbish–and deliberately confused rubbish, like these two examples–where he seems to KNOW NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE CASE. He does not appear to have read the book or the articles and studies I have cited. He has not even read the comments carefully. If there was ever a reason to take him seriously about anything, that time has long since passed.

      3. Hybridrogue1, JIM DOES SAY IT WAS TAKEN BY ZAPRUDER AND THEN ALTERED. There is some question as to if there was another, also, who filmed an earlier background-gathering film for use in editing.

        You simply are choosing to misunderstand his words.

        And yes, the extent of the alteration is clear from the science: interpolation of blur and interpolation of mistaken lens distortions in parts of frames indicate whole-hog reworking of timing and objects and events, which are also knowable, though not as absolutely, from problems in other frames and in how the film does not match witness statements in many, many key ways.

        Parts of the film are unaltered (early section before the splice which is not a physical splice in the extant film, which is without any cuts physically, so it was reshot, or, rather, it was in fact put together frame by frame and copied as such).

        Now, please deal with the science of the absolute faking sections, and why they show the whole thing was remade in its most important aspects: timing, positions of persons, actions of persons, specific objects, specific events.

        1. Yeah, they were primitive times back then weren’t they ? Almost makes you wanna look back at Truman with the Korean war, to actually see why all the clever cronyism was developing which caused Ike Eisenhower to switch parties, and then groom JFK for the Presidency ? I mean, why, Nixon was at least a Republican ?
          The facts are, evil never died, and today, they’re determined to keep killing JFK with the videos and photos back then too ! Ah but keep in mind, if you get too close, they’ll kill you too ! Not one person went to jail for the assassination of JFK, and yet, 5 people were hanged for their involvement with Lincoln’s. If there wasn’t any justice then, you can bet the farm there won’t be any today.

    2. It wasn’t blue screen. You are uninformed. It was done with masks, then projecting onto a screen, and filming that with another camera, frame by frame, where necessary.

      Hybridrogue1, your objections are fine from ignorance about the actual case made; but now get over your assumptions of what sounds wrong to you and learn what the ACTUAL claimed methods are, for this faking.

      Read the book; or listen to the videos.

      I have.

      1. “It wasn’t blue screen. You are uninformed. It was done with masks, then projecting onto a screen, and filming that with another camera, frame by frame, where necessary.”~Clare

        That is what blue screen is for, creating the masks. Are you saying these are rotoscoped – hand made masks?


      2. Let me add Clare, that even if what you are describing is true, you are going to get generational effects. It would be like recording a recording with another recorder recording the sound coming from a speaker. The quality suffers. Even ping-ponging within the same system of a recorder gives you loss of quality. The same goes for film, especially in the analog realm.

        The process you describe would be possible if it were done with a system specially built for the process. The cameras and projectors have to be absolutely stable. This isn’t the type of thing done with a makeshift set-up.

        Do you understand this?


      3. Yes, H1, I understand well that it was not a makeshift process. You might have read about it before raising your objections, but some people raise unnecessary questions before looking into something thoroughly; it makes dealing with them difficult.

        In future, perhaps actually really look through ALL relevant issues before commenting.

        It will be a good method.

    3. Oh yes, people back then questioned about the crowd before the sign, and how, no crowd or anyone after the sign. Down, to the right of the sign, the umbrella man opens his umbrella, he and the crowd doesn’t even look like they belong with the rest of the film ? One person was chased away from the same area Zapruder stood on his perch to make the film, by a Secret Service Agent carrying a machine gun under his coat. The Secret Service said they never dispatched anyone to that area so go figure. “They” were all holding hands for the Greatest Execution of all Time to begin, in which later we were told it was called: The Big Event.

      1. There are lots of things wrong with the film, or suspicious.

        The proofs about faking which are absolutes on any planet for any camera and event are the blur in context and the lens distortion problems. They are mathematical contextual problems.

        The other things are bolstered in how likely they are also fake, and witnesses instead ought to be trusted, by extension from the mathematic problems.

  18. Okay, I have been reading more of the articles that Jim advised we read here. I must now admit that this take on the extent of the manipulation of the “extant Z-film” is likely the truth of the matter.

    Sorry to give anyone ulcers during the exchange here.

    My kudos to you for once Jim. You convinced me on this one.
    I offer my apologies as well.


      1. He started to read the case directly, that’s why. Though I outlined it here, and parts of it were outlined by others, it often does not sink in during back-and-forth discussions on comments because people (not just this person) often assume all points are just ego driven.

        The Z film fakery is so absolute in the blur and lens distortion issues that it was the first absolute I found in the Kennedy case and for which arguments and findings from Costella via Jim, I am eternally grateful.

        It really is not hard; it takes a mind to read, is all.

        But admitting one was wrong is harder. Kudos to him on that.

      2. Jim and Craig,

        Mainly it was reading Doug Horne’s remarks in Jim’s column at Veterans. I had already started to rethink things as I read another article there on the Nix Film.
        It has been evolving towards that all day. I had copied and pasted the names of all the witnesses who claimed the limo had come to a stop {from the Costella PDF}. And just watching the film over a few more times, trying to see what really happens in it as the car gets so low in the frame…

        It was a combination of things, some that don’t even dawn on you consciously at first, nagging doubts and such.


    1. WOW! I am as dumbfounded as I am impressed. It takes tremendous integrity to admit when you are wrong. My estimate of you has skyrocketed. I, too, would love to know the various points that convinced you that you were wrong; but, regardless, I congratulate you!

      1. Ms Kuehn,

        What is the bottom line to this whole thing? What does it mean?

        What it means in my estimation is that JFK was killed in a coup d’etat in Dallas, Texas in 1963. I have known that since before you were born.
        So these revelations about the film…do you think it changes my historical verdict in any way whatsoever? It is just another detail in a mountain of them.

        I have my reasons for my initial reticence, and if you were more aware of the history of this forum that would be no mystery to you. As it is, I shall not explain that to you, and you can just keep your sour disposition for the day..


      2. Hybridrogue1:

        What it changes is ABSOLUTE ARGUMENTS for the conspiracy. Optical mathematics work no matter matter what.

        It is also important for setting straight what witnesses can tell us, not get horribly mistaken by using the films in a bad way.

    2. Well, having the film in lock-up for 10 years, why wouldn’t it be doctored ? Do ya really think they just left it alone and surprised the public for some kind of remembrance ? Just wait another 50 years and they’ll doctor-it so it looks like JFK killed himself. Evil never sleeps.

      1. Jeff, haven’t you read the comments or Craig’s blog above? The original was taken to the NPIC on Saturday the 23rd. It was an 8mm, already split film developed in Dallas. The substitute was brought there on Sunday the 24th. It was a 16mm, unsplit film developed in Rochester by the CIA at a secret photo lab, “Hawkeyeworks”. If you cannot get the basic right at this point in time, you really ought to find other ways to spend your copious free time.

  19. David Mantik mentions a talk by Raymond Fielding on the use of fakery in newsreels – as early as newsreels came into practice.

    Fielding wrote the classic, ‘Techniques of Special Effects of Cinematography’. A book I still have, that I read back in the 60’s.

    I am mentioning this here mainly to explain my original reticence concerning this matter. That was mainly due to my detection that neither Mr Fetzer nor Ms Kuehn have more than a pedestrian understanding of special effects cinematography.Although indeed, as it turns out they have an excellent grasp on the anomalies of the Z-film.

    I think it would be a great benefit for both to read Fielding’s book, so that they are more generally knowledgeable on the subject. I say this because most professionals from the days of film are going to dismiss their dialog out of hand, as the views of amateurs. This is unfortunate, as the revelations as to the alteration of the Z-film is of historical significance.


  20. I understand that in print, we have lots of testimony of the limo coming either to a stop or slowing to a near stop. Can someone point me to a video of witnesses describing this? Particularly if they are at the scene, standing where they were on the day. I have been quite busy lately so maybe there’s links to such video in this very thread, but I’m on limited time.

    1. Mr Syed,

      I don’t think these statements were filmed, as they are taken from the Warren Commission testimonies and FBI reports. However some may have reiterated those statements on film later. Perhaps someone else here knows if this is so…{?}

      The following is the PDF of the witness statements compiled by Costella:

      Adam, if nothing else, I think you must listen to Jim’s interview with Doug Horne, it is at the bottom of the page at:

      An audio broadcast {not one of the films}
      (2009); on Wednesday, 24 February 2010, “Post-Mortem Surgery”, “Witnesses were Present”, “Humes and Boswell Lied”, and “How to Sort Things Out”; and then again on Wednesday, 31 March 2010, on.


      1. Thanks. I ask simply because video or even audio testimony is more compelling. I remember once being in conversation with a friend, explaining the Pentagon NOC flight path. Simply telling him that all those witnesses placed the plane NOC made him merely go “hmmm, interesting.” But later, when he actually watched the video of Lagasse and the rest of them describing on location what they saw, he was more than interested; he was compelled.

        1. I checked interviews done of Bill Newman at the time and years later (on the Jesse Ventura episode on Kennedy) and unfortunately he was not asked about the limo stopping. Newman and his family were just a few feet from Kennedy when he was killed. I’m sure I’ve seen this mentioned in other filmed interviews, though. I’m sure Jim knows the answer to this question.

      2. Yes, they all had to lie or get their heads blown off, along with the other witnesses that mysteriously died. Back then, J.E.Hoover was nothing to screw with, he was the Justice Department and Executioner, go ask any Senator back then, you’ll see.

  21. I am looking forward to ordering and reading Doug Horne’s ‘Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB’, as a beginning to getting the whole set.

    Jim may be surprised to learn that I am also going to buy a copy of ‘Murder in Dealey Plaza’
    {will wonders never cease? Lol}


  22. “For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.” ~John F. Kennedy April 27th, 1961
    – See more at:

    1. Yeah, that’s why he was termed the last President of the United States, the country of “We the People.” He was a true leader in every word he spoke and every word he wrote, he sacrificed his life to liberate everyone, his truth is marching on.

  23. Dennis, I don’t see the justification for the suspicion you describe. Once you posted your question about the 60 witnesses, I quickly went through the pages of Mr. Costella’s collection of witness accounts and found that the swerve to the left came up on page 78 and the limo stopping on the following page. Yes, it would have been helpful to have had that page number in advance (I could have checked for the page prior to posting the link), but it took me no more than two or three minutes to find it, so I’m sure you could have done this as well. Or at least asked.

    I found Costella’s tutorial that you mention to be extremely interesting and informative. I had had the luxury of having watched his entire presentation at the 2003 conference, so perhaps that made it easier for me to grasp what he was describing in the tutorial. My suggestion is that you watch the presentation and then look at the tutorial again.

    To Jim, I would encourage you not to be so quick to condemn someone who doesn’t understand or agree with some aspect of the evidence you are presenting. If someone is being deliberately obtuse (not suggesting that of Dennis) then you have the right to make that point and to call them on it, but I think using terms like “stunning incompetence” just gets people to dig their heels in, ending further communication..Just my opinion, guys.

    1. Craig,

      I agree with what you have said here to both Dennis and Fetzer.

      Now whether he realizes it or not Jim has a very abrasive way about him, and it is hard to have sympathy with his positions due to this type of behavior. This is why I almost wrote this whole thing off in the beginning.

      I can understand as well if Dennis doesn’t think it is worth pursuing this. In the long run, there is ample proof that the assassination of JFK was a coup d’etat, that can be garnered from many angles. And if this is already grasped by someone, the aggravation of dealing with someone like Fetzer may not be worth it to some folks. While I would encourage Dennis to go ahead and take a look at the page I sent him to above, I can certainly understand if he decides to pass on it.


    2. craig,

      thanks for the feedback. when people say and do things, and/or conduct themselves in a particular way, i default to suspicion. the name calling, dismissals, non-answers, personal attacks etc. that jim engages in, trigger that default. as do those who say let’s accept as much of the official 9/11 story as we can unless we can prove otherwise. all the people at 9/11 blogger who attacked drg when he was on his potential deathbed constitute a complete group of people i suspect. ditto those who attack and ridicule the cit work. name calling and ridicule are favorite tactics of the other side. jim engages in name calling and ridicule quite often.

      re the 60 witnesses link. i don’t have the time, patience, or inclination to wade thru lists to find the names that should have been isolated to begin with. i did a scan and found none. i asked for clarification as was told i couldn’t read. when work is sloppy and imprecise, i can’t be bothered with it.

      i found parts of the costella tutorial totally unclear, and others persuasive (assuming that what he is presenting is honest and authentic, which i have no way to gage, except maybe via the company costella keeps, i.e., jim).


      1. This guy commits a blatant ad hominem by attacking the messenger rather than the message. This is a familiar technique for those who cannot cope with evidence and logic when it undermines their preferred point of view. No one who spent so little time on this could reasonably be expected to understand any of the issues–and none of us should be surprised that his return equalled his investment: nothing for nothing.

      2. You know Jim, you said something above just a few minutes ago about you being a “model citizen” until this confrontation with Dennis. Frankly this simply is not so, you are extremely abrasive and much too quick with the sharp tongue. It is the case that ‘the messenger’ comes representing the ‘message’. If he slaps you in the face with it, it is not a pleasant experience and will often spoil the message.

        I wouldn’t expect you to recognize this about yourself in a hundred years, so I won’t proffer any advice about you thinking over your style in blog debates. But I will say that I accepted the position that the film was altered beyond the extent I already felt it was despite the fact that it was coming from you…and it was a close call that I finally looked at the stuff in the articles. I almost didn’t. Now saying that, I am glad I did, I think it is important enough information to put personal issues aside.


        1. interesting take, willy. in my view, if it comes from fetzer, it’s not worth exploring. round and round we go, where it stops, no one knows.

    3. It was a traumatic day of pandemonium in which the shock waves circled the globe, every nation was depending on JFK to stabilize the world for peace, but the threat of communism spreading caused the military industrial complex to go into high gear, McNamara admitted to that…..while he and John were walking through Arlington Cemetery admiring the trees….wink wink.

  24. This guy Dennis makes no apology for his failure to pay attention to the blog or discussion. He protests too much and appears to me to be here only to attack me as his mission. I have dealt with so many different kinds of ops that it’s really not that difficult to spot one.

    It is SUCH AN EASY COP OUT. Notice he has not provided any evidence whatsoever that I have been wrong ABOUT ANYTHING. I would suggest that anyone who posts such crap and cannot support it has impugned his own integrity, which is the case for this nonsense.

    1. jim,
      as previously noted, but still awaiting approval for posting from craig, you are not worthy of a reply. but i will grant you one anyway. [expletives deleted]
      love and kisses,

      1. I like the tone of this one better than the one I haven’t approved. So let’s let this one stand.

        Having said that, I’m ready for this discussion to get back to the Zapruder film and other manipulated evidence in the Kennedy assassination. I understand there is personal friction here, but there’s not much point in bouncing insults back and forth indefinitely.

      2. ok, by me craig. i have a new default. if jim fetzer is involved, ignore it. understood it’s not the right default for all, but it is for me. i will try to disappear now. abracadabra. . . poof!

    2. I’m up in years now, and I’ve watched many people my age still hell-bent on the lone gunman, or the mob-did-it theory, they’re even older then I am ! Don’t be disappointed, a lot of people sell their souls to evil, and that’s the only way they can psychologically protect themselves. I was amazed at the new addition to a very large hospital institution, where a huge portrait of the Saudi Arabian donor was on the wall. I admired it, but the facts show, the money he donated was only the money we gave him in buying their oil. It wasn’t as if he worked for it or took it out of his hard earned pay, he was just thankful to the hospital for saving his life and could care less about anyone else. JFK respected those people too, so don’t feel disappointed, it’s just another Profile in Courage and that’s what makes a true American.

  25. Dennis,

    If you are still reading, here you will find a list of 59 witnesses who report dramatic slowdown and complete stop of the motorcade:

    -“Newsweek,” 12/2/63, p. 2 – “For a chaotic moment, the motorcade ground to an uncertain halt.”

    -“Time,” 11/29/63, p. 23 – “There was a shocking momentary stillness, a frozen tableau.”

    -“Case Closed” by Gerald Posner, 1993, p. 234 – “Incredibly, Greer, sensing that something was wrong in the back of the car, slowed the vehicle to almost a standstill.”

    -Gerald Posner, with Dan Rather, on CBS’ “Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter?” 11/19/93 – By turning around the second time and looking at JFK as the car slows down, Posner says that, “What he [Greer] has done is inadvertently given Oswald the easiest of the three shots.” …


  26. Presidential aide Dave Powers agreed with Kuralt that, if Greer had sped up BEFORE the fatal head shot instead of afterwards, JFK might still be alive today [CBS, 11/22/88]
    * William Manchester, who interviewed Greer, tells us what the driver told Jackie on 11/22/63 at Parkland Hospital: “Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn’t mean to do it[?!?!], I didn’t hear[who, Kellerman?], I should have swerved the car[how about hitting the gas!], I couldn’t help it[!]. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it[?] I swerved. If only I’d seen it in time! Oh!” (Manchester, p.290). 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy) and the Zapruder film document Secret Service agent William R. Greer’s deceleration of the presidential limousine, as well as his two seperate looks back at JFK during the assassination (Greer denied all of this to the Warren Commission-2HGREER[see his entire testimony]). By decelerating from an already slow 11.2 mph, Greer greatly endangered the President’s life, and, as even Gerald Posner admitted, Greer contributed greatly to the success of the assassination.

    When we consider that Greer disobeyed a direct order from his superior, Roy Kellerman, to get out of line BEFORE the fatal shot struck the President’s head, it is hard to give Agent Greer the benefit of the doubt. As ASAIC Roy H. Kellerman said: “Greer then looked in the back of the car. Maybe he didn’t believe me”(“The Death of a President” by William Manchester, p.160). Clearly, Greer was responsible…”~Palamara

    Palamara goes on to claim that Greer had “survivor’s guilt” [the title of his book]. However it is almost certain that Greer was in on the assassination, as were a good number of secret service personnel in the Kennedy detail.

    The filmed scene at Love Field of the 2 agents that would have normally ridden on the rear finder of the limousine, being called off just as the car was leaving the airport is quite illuminating. Both agents were visibly shocked and upset by these last moment orders.

    “I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired.”~Senator Ralph Yarborough, who was in LBJ’s car in the motorcade.

    In fact as Fletcher Prouty has explained in great detail, the Secret Service IS trained to, not only “take off when a shot is fired,” but are under strict protocol to never drive under a certain speed. Also a fact, is the route taken – on Elm Street, is totally against the Secret Service protocol for protection of the President. The hairpin turn from Houston to Elm is in itself a violation of these standard rules that had been in place for years.

    As most students of the assassination know, the motorcade route was changed ‘at the last minute’, even as per the publicized “parade route’ and map in the local papers. However, Kennedy should never have been driven to Elm Street. And all the professionals, who knew the rules would have known that.


    1. And the area of crossfire was marked off with yellow paint on the curb, so as to make it easier for Greer to stop there. Greer has to have been in on it. The others perhaps not. In fact, a lot of them seemed confused and horrified by the event. Some who were in on it (even Greer) may ALSO have had survivor’s guilt; this is entirely possible; feeling conflicted but ultimately justifying what they did. Life is messy.

      As to your focus on Horne and the limo stop from Palomara and Jim, rather than on Costella and Jim, it seems to me you are attempting to avoid what Jim actually brings to the discussion himself. The work with Costella, anyway, is the most absolute.

      It is that which is absolute mathematically. The limo stop and ALL other changed and missing aspects of the event that day, are why, but the mathematical f***-ups are the absolute proofs (and we are lucky to have them), which mean the film is not a camera original from any camera on any planet.

      1. “…it seems to me you are attempting to avoid what Jim actually brings to the discussion himself…”~Ms Kuehn

        So Jim helped Costella with his math? It is my impression that Jim has acted as PR for these various researchers. This is admirable in itself as their works are important.

        Having the impression that you are still “sour”, I can only comment that like Dennis, I don’t really care about this aspect of it. I am actually going where things have led me since this article appeared on T+S. I don’t have any ulterior motive to cut Jim out of the picture. As you will note in the dialog above it was Jim himself that gave the lead to Palomara for the 59 witnesses to the limo slowdown/stop.

        “which mean the film is not a camera original from any camera on any planet,” you say, yes it do mean that honey..(grin)…I think that has been made clear enough now.


        1. Well, let’s see. Why are these books in print? How many contributions of mine are found in them? Who else organized this research group? I brought together experts in different areas, including a world authority on the human brain, who was also an expert on wound ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board-certified in radiation oncology; a physician who was present when JFK was examined in Trauma Room #1 and, two days later, was responsible for the treatment of his alleged assassin; a legendary photo and film analyst; and another Ph.D. with an expertise in electromagnetism, the properties of light and images of moving objects.

          I have chaired (now) five JFK conferences, three of which I organized and moderated (Minneapolis 1999; Duluth 2003; Santa Barbara 2013). I have edited three books, which even Vince Bugliosi has described as the “only exclusively scientific books” ever published on the assassination. I have been in the trenches battling the bad guys with vigor since 1996. My first web site was I founded an on-line journal for the advanced study of the death of JFK at, which I now edit with John P. Costella.

          Why don’t you go through and see how many articles each of us has contributed? I continued to conduct research, most recently on the Altgens6, with another research group, where you can find dozens of articles I have published on Veterans Today. I think Clare was observing that you are trivializing my contributions to the study of the death of JFK. And when you suggest I have been doing “PR” for others, you confirm it.

      2. Jim has been slammed here and it was his intrepidness and focus which brought these people together or to the point they did their work, and brought it out as well (PR, as you like to say) afterward.

        Also, don’t “honey” me in that way. (“Grin”)

        And I am not sour in general about the discussion here; just impatient that people don’t do a thorough job as much as possible before getting vitriolic.

        As is rightly so. (Grin)

    2. You should like the other chapter by Vince Palamara about the Secret Service “On the Job in Dallas”, where he identifies William Greer, the driver; Emory Roberts, the Agent in Charge of Presidential Security; and Floyd Boring, Assistant Director of the Secret Service, as the key players in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003). It was Emory Roberts who called off the two agents who would have run along the limo or ridden on it at Love Field, the first of more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit. And I am glad to see you doing research on some of the most important aspects of the assassination.

      1. “It was Emory Roberts who called off the two agents who would have run along the limo or ridden on it at Love Field..”~Jim Fetzer

        Yes, it was some years ago that I first saw the video of that incident at Love Field. Although I haven’t kept the names of these agents in mind for some time now; William Greer, Emory Roberts, and Floyd Boring.

        So has it been determined who changed the motorcade route to the killing field? I would posit that Boring and Roberts would be prime suspects, along with higher-ups in the actual planning; those who arranged for the shooters and positioning, etc.

        I’m curious about the French connection — the material in FAREWELL AMERICA, as to how this might fit in. Wasn’t ‘umbrella man’ once thought to be that French agent?

        Also the Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal…what about the Mexican shooter team? Has this info been abandoned? Seems to me that “World Vision” and the Lennon assassination have a tie in, or was once thought to…


      2. Hybridrogue1:

        As to the Lennon assassination and World Vision: yes, Chapman worked with World Vision during period of Beirut crisis, and through YMCA. But the real connection to the killing is the anti-Castro Cuban armed doorwayman, same name as head of Operation 40 Assassination Team working through CIA. Seems he took the remarkably close heart-shots — possibly all shots in total — at and hitting Lennon.

  27. For those who want to know more about the assassination, consider the following:

    “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today” (UW-Madison, 22 November 2011)

    “JFK Part 1: A National Security Event – Oswald didn’t do it” (2012)

    “JFK Part 2: A National Security Event – How it was done” (2012)

    “JFK a5 50: The Who, the How and the Why” (2013)

    The Santa Barbara Conference videos are now available at Check out Pay-per-view

    1. I like that when people are looking at the who, what, where, and how….makes me think I’m sitting in my old high school English class. When a person asks four or more questions at one time, intelligence is the first word that should come to anybody’s mind, and the only organization with that capability and finances was the CIA and the FBI. When you then get side-tracked to the military, especially the Marines, you know your walking into the military intelligence community, and of course, the military industrial complex. Well, now that we got all that out on the table, who said Oswald at 24 years old did what ? ….with what ? A pregnant wife with a toothache suffering with a language barrier ? They’ve should’ve asked George de Mohrenschildt when they had the chance, at least he would’ve been able to find some other reason to put a shotgun in his mouth.
      Playing with all these little technicalities of this picture verses that picture, this witness verses that witness is pure hog-wash, and a total distraction towards the truth, and that’s exactly what intelligence capability intends to keep doing…..”it’s like they’re resurrecting the horse so they can kill it again, and again, and again.” “Just can’t leave a good dead horse laying around, can we ?” Besides the French Connection, how about the Golden Triangle in Vietnam or how Mary Pinchot Meyers got her diary screwed up with JFK and her doing drugs or Marilyn Monroe’s abortion of JFK’s baby ? Come on, we gotta find some more dead horses here to dig-up, can’t let all of this fun go to waste ?
      Can anybody see now, with all those stupid stories, they’re exposing the truth ? So, somebody go tell Vincent Bugliosi the case is not closed, and never will be either !

        1. I have to admit, John had a large impact on my childhood, but millions like me were in the same boat too. You see, indigent children were running all over America and the only institution that was sociologically doing something about it was the Catholic Church orphanages. By 1961, I was apprehended and placed in a reform school with delinquents because in Florida there were no available foster homes or orphanages. John Kennedy said, “Children are not criminals and shall not be treated as such !” He de-institutionalized all Reform Schools in America, forcing adoption, foster care and construction of orphanage programs throughout America.
          You see, Hoover and the rest of the Justice Department was rounding up these children for militarized training to be later swept into the military, that’s why no one got a social security number until they were 18, John saw this shrewd scheme and chopped it down. Can you see why they wanted him dead ? In order to look at the assassination of JFK, you have to look deep into the 50’s to see what happened.

  28. Well, here’s to comment # 170 and a Happy New Year to all. I realize that many here, including myself to a degree regard Snowden as well as Assange as “limited hangout.” Yes, it was hardly surprise to us aware ones that the NSA was doing stuff like this. We know it’s being going on since at least the Patriot Act if not before. That being said, most people are not as ahead of the curve as we are; Here is now addressed my several hundred largely non-truther/activist friends on FB.
    In the fall of 1996, at the Freshman Orientation assembly hall at Ohio State, the dean implored us to remember that purpose of higher education is to “pursue truth.” Not to get the credentials required for the job that will acquire you the big house and two cars. But to “pursue truth.” I never forgot that.

    2013 is, in many ways, thanks to Edward Snowden, a year of vindication for those of us who have for a long time been derided as “paranoid conspiracy theorists.” What was swept under the carpet yesterday as a “conspiracy theory” is today acknowledged by the establishment media such as the Washington Post.

    Here’s to 2014 being a year for truth!

    1. Unless Snowden releases some real information about the truth, we’ll still be called paranoid conspiracy theorists. Watering it down to nothing but illegal espionage isn’t going to do a damn thing towards exposing the real truth, period.

      1. Let’s hope more truth comes out for all of mankind’s sake, or we’re all heading for destruction. All of recorded history is so corrupted it isn’t funny, we have to turn it around now.

  29. The mist of blood that is seen in the Zapruter film and claimed to be unnatural by the Fetzer crowd, is now recognized as what is called “Backspatter”, which is blood that sprays out of the entry wound as more or less a mist, and it does indeed dissipate within a split second. It proves the shot was from the front.

    According to Ms Fiester’s forensic investigation the shot came from the opposite area of the Dealy Plaza towards the triple-overpass, not the grassy knoll. This is not to say that shots did not come from that area. This according to modern Trajectory Reconstruction techniques.

    Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination
    By Sherry Fiester

    Sherry Fiester is a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor with 30 years of experience. She has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, and bloodstain pattern analysis in Louisiana Federal Court and over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. Author of numerous articles in professional publications, Fiester is recognized as an instructor in her field at state and national levels.

    Fiester has presented forensic findings at the Coalition on Political Assassinations Conference (COPA) in Washington, DC in 1995, the Dealey Plaza Echo Annual Kennedy Assassination Conference in the United Kingdom in 1996, and at JFK Lancer November in Dallas Historical Research Conferences since 1996. Fiester is a recipient of the prestigious JFK Lancer-Mary Ferrell New Pioneer Award, presented for advancing a better understanding of evidence in the Kennedy Assassination through innovative research.

    Now retired from police work, Fiester is a prominent author, lecturer, and educator. “Enemy of Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the JFK Assassination” is her first in a series of upcoming publications utilizing various forensic disciplines to address important subjects of interest to Americans in the 21st century. Her next book, “Demystifying Mind Control” is slated for release in late 2013.

    The Forensics
    “Enemy of the Truth,” by Sherry Fiester reveals compelling new information supported by the weight of scientific validity by examining assassination evidence with contemporary research and established forensic investigative techniques, including:

    The mechanics of head wound ballistics
    Utilization of high-speed photography
    Fracture sequencing studies of human skulls
    Beveling in relation to projectile directionality
    Blood spatter pattern analysis
    Target movement in gunshot injuries
    Trajectory analysis for the fatal head shot
    Written from the perspective of a court certified forensic investigator, this exceptional piece of scientific work looks the assassination as a major crime, revealing truths that meet today’s standard of evidence required to support a criminal conviction.


    1. Well, I wouldn’t pay into the detail too much when it comes to the Zapruder Film, it’s truly been doctored severely. The only shots we saw were the rear view aspect of the Limo until 1972. There was no blood spray in that film which for some reason is missing today. It was this film where we saw the brake lights blaring for the kill shot….so, it’s no need to wonder where the shot came from, for all eyes were looking towards the Grassy Knoll except for John Kennedy’s.

      1. Sorry jeffydiver, according to modern forensic trajectory analysis the kill shot came from the far end of Dealy Plaza close to the triple overpass.
        The Z-film is not dramatically altered and matches all the movements of the Nix and Muchmore films exactly. [see: side-by-side video analysis of all three films below.]

        ““We can now scientifically prove a single, front head shot from a location near the south end of the triple overpass.”~Fiester


        1. I could agree with that theory, but the distance and the results of the impact; throwing his body to the left, shows me it came from the grassy knoll. Also the gun smoke came from there too. The fake Dallas Police a.k.a. Secret Service were there with small machine guns keeping spectators from the area. Also, the guard in the tower was there and saw the suspects at the fence in which later, he mysteriously died. Finally, all the spectators running up to the grassy knoll confirms they heard the fatal shot from there too.

          1. Oh, I forgot….Hunt, Sturgis and Frenchie (sharp shooter from France) were later apprehended as Hobos in a train car in back of the grassy knoll.

          2. jeffydiver,
            You are mistaken. Shots came from the grassy knoll yes, but not the shot that hit Kennedy. Shots were coming from many directions. The ballistic evidence proves that the shot came from the front, not the side. If the grassy knoll shooters would have hit Kennedy at or near the same point at his temple, the trajectory of the bullet would have transversed the skull and blown out the left side of the head.

            Like the Pentagon issue, the trajectory is the key, it is forensic science.

            Take a look at this illustration (URL below) and read the article by Fiester in it’s entirety (URL above)


          3. “…but the distance and the results of the impact”~Jeffy

            The distance he says…? What?? Some 200 feet is no great distance for a high powered rifle!
            Again, that a shooter team may have been at the fence behind the grassy knoll and actually took shots. it doesn’t mean that those shots were one that hit Kennedy. The ballistics prove that JFK was hit from the front at a very specific angle. Trajectory from entrance to exit is the issue.
            This trajectory can not be achieved from the side where the picket fence was just to the right of the car.

      1. All four of the closest motorcyclists recalled the limousine stop. An actual stop would surely have caused some instability in their bikes – most likely they had to work to keep their bikes balanced while the limousine paused.”~Mantik

        Citation please.

  30. The Z-film Controversy
    The Key to this false controversy promoted by Jim Fetzer is a side-by-side comparison of the three well known films of the assassination in Dallas; the Zapruter, Muchmore. and Nix films. The exact same sequence plays out in all three; the movements of the bystanders, the limo, the passengers, and the motorcycle officers. The limo never comes to a complete stop in any of these films. I was fortunate enough to locate a YouTube video that has all three films in sinc in the same frame. This is conclusive evidence that the Z-film portrays the same event as the other two films. That video URL is just below:

  31. Well, if you want to listen to the Pentacon go ahead. Who did the protractor drawing of the Dealey Plaza …..that is not the way the grassy knoll looked back then. Kennedy’s head was hanging down from the bullet wound through his throat while Jackie was trying to untie his neck tie to see what was the matter. If the shooter was aiming downward, the projectile would’ve penetrated the Trunk, for God’s sakes ? I remember it very clearly, and Jack White is a good friend of mine over this mess too. As far as the Pentacon goes, they’re guilty for this tragic murder and also murdering his son too !

    1. jeffydiver,

      You obviously haven’t paid any attention to the links I offer here, and are not interested in learning anything new that doesn’t fit your preconceptions.

      The information I am providing is from a CSI expert, her expertise is in blood splatter and trajectory ballistics – if you don’t know the argument you cannot present a meaningful rebuttal, but can only bring useless blablabla to the table.

      Her proofs are conclusive of a shot from the front – if that is your so-called “Pentagon” stand then you are living in an alternate universe.

      In my experience your “good friend” Jack White is a bullshitter.


      1. Whatever…..I lived through that crap, and all of the sixties was hideous to say the least. You can modernize anything you want but the idiots who lived there back then were uneducated, outright brutal, and really didn’t give a damn….all they wanted was War with Russia and the Kennedys were in the way. As close as they could get was Vietnam, and that crap went down in a trash heap while we were celebrating landing on the Moon ! Get real, you can improvise the investigation into all sorts of educated theories of what could’ve happened but the facts are, it was a Big Event, and that means a hell of a lot of people were involved in the Assassination. Jim Garrison did one of the most intensive investigations on it, and they’re still trying to smear his investigation today ! Well, I won’t give you an ounce of support for that ignorance. Wake up !

        1. jeffydiver,

          You are reacting as if I am an apologist for the official story; the farthest thing from the truth.

          First of all I am 67 years old. I lived through the 60’s as well. I was 16 years old when Kennedy was killed in that coup d’etat in Dallas.

          You go on to finish with this: ” I won’t give you an ounce of support for that ignorance. Wake up !”

          This is absurd as you are the one bawling from a crib and making zero sense.

          You don’t have any logical arguments to put forward here, just emotional outbursts. You are in effect utterly useless. You have the debating skills of a piece of day old toast.

        2. Hybridrogue seems often (not always) to be a plodding thinker, using his own nose without help from others’ multiform perspectives. Jack White was a daring (if sometimes mistaken) thinker; he got things quickly, attempted to stay open to new material, sifted issues. RIP Jack White, friend to me, too.

          1. “Hybridrogue seems often (not always) to be a plodding thinker, using his own nose without help from others’”

            What Clare is saying here is that I am slow; “plodding thinker” and that I think for myself; “using his own nose without help from others”.

            No, I use my own eyes and don’t buy things because someone else sees things differently.

        3. Jack White first made a name for himself by trying to show that the famous photographs (e.g., Fig. 1) of accused Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his back yard had been falsified. Claiming, among other things, that he had found discrepancies between the measurements of that rifle taken from the photo, and other photographs of the rifle recovered from the Texas School Book Depository, White maintained that Oswald was holding a different rifle than the one believed to be used to shoot President Kennedy.

          Unfortunately under examination before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations White’s evidence completely fell apart. He demonstrated almost no understanding of the mathematical and geometrical principles of photogrammetry. He admitted to having received no training in photogrammetry or the forensic analysis of photographs.

          His embarrassment before Congress did not stop White from continuing his research on the Kennedy assassination, although his findings remain questionable. Some researchers into Kennedy’s assassination consider White something of a crackpot.

          Jack White admitted he isn’t a scientist or a physicist, and that he wasn’t able to account for perspective effects in his JFK analysis. So much for what he isn’t. He must have some professional qualifications. What are they?

          He holds a bachelor of arts degree in journalism with a minor in history from the Texas Christian University. (Proceedings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations vol. 2, p. 322.)


          1. [He demonstrated almost no understanding of the mathematical and geometrical principles of photogrammetry.] ____you never read of any of his reports…..period.

            Oh, I see, we should throw out his whole investigations because of credentials ? If it weren’t for Jack, I don’t think Jim Garrison would be convinced enough to even investigate what he presented. The fact is, nobody was knowledgeable enough to even take on the challenge back then; with all the idiots killing collateral witnesses during the same time. Then again, I’m sure you’re one of those who believe the forensic reports from the autopsy at Bethesda !

            1. Jack White wasn’t around during the Garrison probe Jeffy. He didn’t show up until the House Committee on Assassinations. Do you have any sense at all of timelines?

              “Oh, I see, we should throw out his whole investigations because of credentials?” ~Jeffy

              Nothing at all was said about “credentials”, the words were, “no understanding” meaning no knowledge of. One can have great knowledge without credentials – but if one displays ignorance it matters not what credentials there are or not.

              I in fact have read much of Whites reports, both JFK and 9/11. I do not find him credible at all.

            2. Jeffy,

              Garrison trial of Clay Shaw was in 1967

              The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976. It was Jack White’s testimony there that brought him into public view.


              1. The Clay Shaw or Bertrand with David Ferrie was a connection of information that lead to connections of the Assassination plot, they weren’t involved, but with the death of David, Jim didn’t have a chance of a conviction. When Jim kept getting proposals to continue the investigation, that’s when information started coming forth which led up to Senator Frank Church’s desk, in which kept the ball rolling until George de Mohrenschildt supposedly blew his head off with a shotgun before appearing for testimony. As you can see, they were tying up the loose wires. They even had to go back and exhume Oswald’s grave to make sure it was Oswald in the grave, but the findings went on into the National Security Archives. I think they should dig up Marilyn Monroe and see if she was carrying JFK’s baby ? Maybe go over to Judith Baker’s story and see if really she had some of Oswald’s sperm in a closet or drawer ? The fact is, we are suppose to be looking at JFK and Zapruder, and that god damn film he made so much money over that they locked it up for 10 years, trying to convince us today that this is what really happened ? “gimme a break.” I’d rather watch reruns of the Lunar Lander.

    2. It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.~Mark Twain

  32. This is Billy Lovelady, it is not Oswald as some will claim. I would put my visual acuity up against anybody’s and my opinion is it is Lovelady. He has his right shoulder high bracing himself on the inner wall while leaning on the door frame, his left shoulder is low in counterbalance to his right.

    1. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.~Mark Twain” Beware what quotations you use. It is not mere visual acuity you need to know it is Oswald. There are many considerations which show (indicate) that, but require reorienting your items of evidence. Oswald’s eye is still visible, the head is his but manipulated, the shirts doctored (bad checkers), the position reworked, the mid-buttons covered by a perfect profile black man, the other figures problematic, the later pictures of Lovelady have the same doctoring on the left arm, because of the awkwardness here needing to be continued, the doorway itself is a problem, etc. Sorry. Last 3 sections before the final section are mine.

      1. I have seen this analysis Clare, and I don’t buy it.

        Note where his shirt collar tips are in the photo, that is the angle of his clavicle. His left arm is forward and reaching tightly in front of him his left hand is likely resting on the wall he leans against.

      2. Part of the problem with the above pic of Lovelady is the grain. This is a blow up of a tiny section of a larger photo – the doorway is far off in the photo. Notice the grain in the suit coat the guy in the background is wearing, the same grain pattern there as interrupts the actual patterning on Lovelady’s shirt. One cannot determine from this photo whether that shirt is striped or checkered or some other pattern, the grain obscures it.

        1. There are problems in all parts of the photo — but it’s a wrong arm, posture, nothing for him to be holding there, problem w/ profile (and exactly where button would give it away), missing head for man next to him (Bill Shelley), matches what was done later to Lovelady (his arm was cut up even more crudely b/c impression of problem should strike you and they wanted to cover up the impression with more). Worked long enough. Get over it. — Pattern is check: but blobby (typical paintbrush). Ever been in a darkroom?

          1. You can change your shirt but you can’t change your face.

            As an artist I have studied anatomy my entire life. There is nothing wrong with the anatomy of Lovelady in this photo. He is leaning down to his left, his arm is in front of him from the shoulder across. He is more squeezing between his right shoulder and pulling against the other side with his left hand.

            You can attempt to convince the forum but you won’t convince me.

                1. It’s just amazing that 51 years ago today, there are those determined to smear the evidence with all kinds of fictitious anomalies, so as to discredit the original investigations. History is only written by the winners, and newer generations of children learning of this horrific tragedy seek the truth, only to find more confusion clouding the evidence. Those of us, who were children back then followed it very clearly. Somewhere in Congress they asked the Russians who they thought killed John Kennedy, and they replied, “it was coincidence that killed him.” This tells me they were involved in the many facets of distorting the facts of Oswald and JFK. We can only surmise that it was a very high powered rifle that blew-out the back of John’s head, and those so called “Hobos” were involved; in which the news media was determine to downplay. This particular rifle took a lot of training to use, and I believe it had a floating scope for being as accurate as it was against a moving target. I looked though many rifle classifications and the only one that was designed for this type of purpose during this period was the Dragunov SVD…..and you know where that came from.

                    1. Well, concerning the shirt……I don’t know how to post a photo here, but look up when he was arrested… wasn’t plaid, maybe very faintly, but not over-blown. The photo of him at the TSBD doorway was Oswald with that shirt. Who changed the plaid colors and intensity ? Whoever doctored the photo is only trying to discredit the investigation, and yes, the investigation is still on-going; and always will be too.

                    2. No Oswald wasn’t wearing that plaid shirt when he was arrested on the 22nd. He was wearing a plain white tee shirt. There are no photos of him in a plaid shirt at the arrest. Afterwards in the jail he had on a sepia shirt with black lines over the tee shirt . Whether he had it with him at the time of arrest is unknown.

                    3. Jeffy,

                      there is a photo of the shirt Oswald was wearing in jail [see URL above], it is not faded nor ‘doctored’ it is simply a different shirt – there are no photos of Oswald wearing that plaid shirt.

          2. On another topic – that being the Zapruder film, in Jim’s interview with Doug Horn, Horn speaks a lot about this “Hollywood research group” doing hi-res scans that are being analyzed by “Hollywood film experts”. That interview took place in 2010 there has been no follow-up report from this “Hollywood research group” that I can find on the web.

            It has been four more years now, where are they?

        1. No, Lovelady wore a striped shirt, filled out shirts more; the collar & the t-shirt match Lee as does the slightly warped face. There’s no hand and there’s no blur of movement. The rail was further away; the arm is implausible and the black profile is a clever but stupid-looking concealment of the telltale join of Oswald’s shirt. The blobbiness of the check is bad; all other items in light are far more defined. Lovelady’s later photos are chopped up for the HSCA on the left arm to continue the impression that left arm just looked weird; close inspection shows really bad cutwork. It’s a problem in many areas of crowd, including “black” doorway; the doorway at the time was close to the figures but later was moved back so subsequent photos would seem darker.

          1. “There’s no hand and there’s no blur of movement.”

            His left hand is obscured by the people in front of him. Why would there be “blur movement”?He is leaning out in a still pose.

            There is nothing about this face that isn’t Lovelady.

            1. Yes, you’re being fooled by the slightly higher forehead; it’s a redone head but not completely. — The image was doctored; the “complexity” was: Oswald was there, then Lovelady impression was increased, blobby shirt (badly done with arm wrong, no hand, profile over lower part) to get rid of 3rd guy (bigger, darker but balding, probably an agent/ assassin) caught on TV.

              Not so hard to figure out. — When I mentioned the hand it was to point out the “hanging” look to the body would be improbable with the rail so far away, the “man in front” being “crouching” perfectly & not looking reasonably at anything, whereas with the blobby shirt, the shape of the shirt (which the later Lovelady did wear, he not being much heftier, in the also-doctored left arm later photos for the HSCA, but clearly it was not loose at all even unbuttoned a bit though he was told to “wear it as he did” & died soon thereafter before testifying). It’s a trick.

              You’re just overthinking things in a plodding illogic, things which need more thinking but in a reorientation way. Sorry; you’re missing it.

              1. Are you saying that this was not Lovelady’s shirt? What?

                It is Lovelady in the doorway, there is no doubt in my mind. I don’t have to “overthink” anything, all I have to do is look at the picture. Oswald and Lovelady do not look that similar at all, unless you are suffering from prosopagnosia…(??)

                1. You really are not familiar with the evidence and reasoning, even though I outlined some main points above & linked to the article. I hate repeating my own & others’ points.

                  Everything I said has a lot of backing. — No, Oswald was not similar in all angles, nor was agent “gorilla-like” man too similar to either, but with enough passing points of resemblance in a doctored photo, it works, badly. Oswald’s head (top) was smoothed (his eyes are Oswald’s but the shape of the face outward silhouette with forehead was slightly exaggerated). The shirt is the shape of Oswald’s with t-shirt of Oswald (incl. pulled neckline). The blobby checks came from wanting Gorilla Man not commented upon from TV. The passing resemblance with Lovelady was used as claim for years, but even then no photos for a long time of him; FBI itself had photo of him in real shirt he claimed that day he wore (big stripes, long sleeves). By the time of the HSCA, Groden (agent, dupe or whatever) took pics of Lovelady in a checked shirt, which someone doctored for the Hearings; not noticing until bothering to really look, the left-hand checks in the pic for the HSCA are blatantly cut (reworked) in several places, to give a cursory impression of the awkwardness of a left arm, much more completely obvious if one looks but it worked to give impression the original photo was somehow natural.


                  There’s much more to the photo.

                  1. Short sleeves, sorry. Lovelady’s shirt was short sleeved. – I have the opposite of prosopagnosia. “Just looking” is not enough. One can be had by a partial impression, a passing resemblance in a doctored head or in a real passing resemblance.

                    1. “Short sleeves, sorry. Lovelady’s shirt was short sleeved.”~Clare Kuehn

                      Ms. Kuehn is speaking to the striped short sleeve shirt he was photographed wearing when he met with the later House Investigation. These are the only photos of Lovelady in that shirt, and they are from years after the assassination. Lovelady said they did not instruct him to wear the same shirt he was wearing on November 22, at the Book Depository. Whether this is true or not, there are no photo’s of him in that shirt that day. The only photo’s are of Lovelady in the plaid shirt.

                      Again the argument put forth for Oswald being in the doorway is only addressed by assertions based on supposition. The material evidence shows no such contemporaneous images of Lovelady in a striped short sleeve shirt on Nov. 22. It shows him in the plaid shirt. Also, there are no images of Oswald in the plaid shirt on Nov. 22, only him in a white tee-shirt. And later that evening in another shirt that is not the plaid shirt, but a sepia/rust colored shirt.
                      This becomes redundant because these facts are rejected over and again.

                      The only conclusion available is that it is Lovelady in the background of the Altgens photograph.

                    2. I don’t know why everyone is focusing on Lovelady or Oswald ? Neither one of them had anything to do with the Assassination ! Why don’t you focus on the bullet hole through the windshield or what Connally said as they were getting shot ? How about the brake lights on the Limo ? Or, why were the spectators over at Elm Street and not in the kill zone ? Why did the Limo turn into Dealey Plaza so Zapruder could get a good film shot ? Why did the Umbrella man open his umbrella as the President passes by ? That crap at the TSBD building had nothing to do with the Assassination. In fact, after the shooting everyone was running up to the Grassy Knoll, not the TSBD building at all !

                  2. “You really are not familiar with the evidence and reasoning, even though I outlined some main points above & linked to the article. I hate repeating my own & others’ points.”~Clare

                    Not so, this is an argument that extends all the way from last year, and I have been reexamining all of this from that perspective.

                    Again we get to the point where the “photo fakery” crowd is attempting to put all of the photo evidence into question, this happened in 9/11, and now it is going on with the JFK Assassination. What this tactic does is put everything up in the air, sowing confusion where there should be none – that reads as a covert operation in my book. So again I must mention Fetzer’s MO here, and the fact that Clare Kuehn is his disciple gives her the same MO. She argued this bullshit along with Fetzer on the 9/11 debates as well.

                    I get the feeling that more people suffer from varying degrees of prosopagnosia than might be guessed at.
                    I ran across this with the Boston Bombing discussions and Sandy Hook as well, all these assertions by people such as Dallas Goldbug and his fans. Too many people fall for this sort of crap. And asserting that the perpetrators are doctoring these photo’s in so many instances becomes absurd.

                    1. Goldbug is an idiot. This argument is multiform, with excellent reasoning about that reworked face. It is far from saying George Bush is Sinatra (sarcasm, but close to the problem of Goldbug).

                      I have no truck with “all-fake” crowd; I recognize when a photo is doctored by multiple reasons & careful assessment of a face involved. The issue with 9/11 “all fake” suggestions is complex in its own right, but not the topic here. (8 of the same head on different bodies is an example of Victim Bloating, i.e., adding to the death record impression, even if many died, & is merely one argument for it. This is not to say all persons dead were fake or to say that all footage was completely unreal.)

                      Your subtlety & familiarity with my work are sorely lacking in this. Try again.

                    2. I have read your “reasoning” Clare, so there is no need to keep this argument going in a roundabout.

                      I do not buy it, that is where it stands.

                    3. This is, moreover, exactly where doctoring would be needed, for Oswald & other people who might be recognized to be obscured. Each new item which was recreated now had to falsely match other things in the record, other things over time, too, each of which presented new issues revealing problems.

                    4. Just let me say this Ms. Kuehn, that your insistence that this photo of Lovelady is really Oswald puts a justified suspicion to all of the other points here you and Mr. Fetzer have asserted on this page.

  33. Knowing there had to be three teams of shooters, the fatal shooter was well hidden in the north aspect so as a Polaroid or any other film would only depict black in the development. This fact tells me this was well planned way in advance. How far in advance, somewhere around 1960 ? In 1961 Connally was Secretary of the Navy in which we know cut a check for Oswald to return to the U.S. then, he moves on to become Governor of Texas. His televised film of the sequence of event about the shooting literally convicts him of before knowledge involvement. So, if we could get Oswald’s tax records it would clear up who he worked for.

    1. Jeffy,
      The guy to the very left holding the kid with the cap has Oswald’s tax records in his hat. The hat was just faked onto his head so the papers wouldn’t show.

        1. I know…we can laugh about it now, it’s just amazing at how the whole internet has been twisting up the photos in the archives, using modern digital enhancements; even changing the positioning of the spectators to the actual scenes….it’s unreal ! Outright comical too !

  34. So to sum up here:

    We are fed all this yada about Oswald wearing this checkered shirt on that day. Then I show a photo of Lovelady wearing that shirt; but this makes no impression because so much has been invested in the other side’s argument about it being Oswald’s shirt.
    The most simple and direct conclusion is that the photo of the person in the doorway was Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt he is known to have had.

    Rather than going through all of this convoluted and twisted argument, the obvious should be seen for what it is…OBVIOUS! It was Billy Lovelady in the doorway to the School Depository.

  35. Recognizing that it is Lovelady in the doorway in that photo is not the same as claiming Oswald was the shooter and that he was on the 6th floor at the time the shots were fired.
    Testimony puts Oswald in the lunchroom having a Coke mere moments after the shots were fired. There is plenty of other evidence that Oswald was a patsy and could not have been a shooter in Dallas.

    All of the hysterical hyperbole spewing from the image fakery crowd tells me they are grasping at straws – not to find the truth, but to sell their own prized version of the event.

    1. You got that right. When I go to visit JFK’s grave, overlooking Arlington Cemetery, that no matter how much they try, they just can’t bury the truth. From my house to the Subway, I take the Orange line and transfer over to the Blue line and it lets you out right in front of the Cemetery. You walk about 10 minutes and you’re standing over his grave. Everyone’s respectful, no talking allowed and cameras all over the place. When you leave, you know Oswald didn’t do it.

      1. JFK’s spirit is still alive in that flame Jeffy, he is communicating with your spirit and telling you what can only be told from that spirit world beyond time and space.

        1. We can dream those thoughts, but the Lord has his own plans; we can only follow them. Evil rules the world, always has. I just know, if JFK had lived and made two terms, our country would be a lot different with a more financially stable economy. After his death you can vividly see how the evil has grown spontaneously, and literally wrecking our socio-economic values to no end….even the chicken-shit Congress has gotten more chicken-shit. No, I hate to say it, but there’s no more Americanism.

            1. Interesting, I’m not familiar with it ? I was raised as an indigent child in a reform school at the age of 6 to 10. John de-institutionalized reform schools and I flew out to another home under foster care. Oswald was one of us, he never had a drivers license and yet going around the world, dies in Dallas at the age of 24. The indigent children back then went into the military because they had nowhere else to go…..I was lucky. Other ding dong kids like Charlie Manson forced private psychological evaluations on us Foster children to see if we were growing up like him. Back in Oswald’s time, you didn’t get your social security number until you were 21. These soldiers that got killed in Vietnam got disposed of because there were no waiting families for them. Can you see why John and Robert were hell-bent on changing America by getting rid of the mob ?

  36. A friend of mine ask me by email if I saw any connections, direct connections between the group that killed Kennedy and 9/11. This is my answer:

    “Continuity of Government”
    The System will choose men who do the System’s bidding.

    It is the System, the apparatus. So YES. There are generations; familial – a lot centered around Yale and Skull and Bones, but not exclusively – deeper, more extant. By that I mean global at the apex of the pyramid:
    The central banking cabal. All Intelligence agencies feed back up the food chain to them. That’s how they call the shots. This system works very smoothly, all of the chaos is directed theater.

    Yes a “whale of a tale but true” just like explained by Kirk Douglas in 20 THOUSAND LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA … Or maybe that was 7 DAYS IN MAY.

    1. Yup, that’s a fact ! Everything up on the Hill is by schedule, planned way in advance.
      When you see something unexplainable and yet an answer has already been presented, you can bet the farm it’s part of the schedule….it’s not a freak accident, it’s not a happen-change, it’s not fly by night, it’s not a surprise, it is what it is. When the President goes to a golf trip, did you think he just thought it up and took off ? It’s all in the planned schedule, don’t forget it.

  37. This is a digitally enhanced new version of the Z-film that shows the “ghost” images created by the sprocket mechanism advancing the film with the socket holes leaking into the next frame.
    As discussed above this new imagery indicates that no frames have been removed from the film – the explanations for that are in the material above – this post is simply presenting the enhancement that show what was barely visible on the many 3rd-4th-5th generation copies that most are familiar with.


    1. For the readers’ convenience I will repeat a section of a previous comment above that outlines the matter of the ‘ghost images':

      “The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected. Some 8 mm cameras have a notch in the top of the aperture plate where the claw finishes its stroke when pulling down the next frame. Bell & Howell designed the aperture plate to use a groove in the middle of the aperture plate instead of a notch at the top. The illustration on the left is from a standard reference on film making which shows what an aperture plate looks like with a typical notch. The illustration on the right is what the aperture plate would look like if the notch had been changed to a groove. I also suspect that the corners are actually rounded instead of sharp. After exposure of the current frame, the claw grabs the current frame’s sprocket hole and pulls the current frame down to bring in the next frame.”~Marsh

    2. Well, I still believe the Z film has been altered big time. Until I see the part of the Limo driving into the plaza and the clearer version of the fatal shot, I’m ain’t buying any of that crap !

      1. Jeffy,
        Your empty protests and emotional banter are nothing but distraction here.
        Simply pronouncing it “crap” is not an argument, it is just more of your pouting and squalling.

        1. Ok, I’ll repeat myself…..[“Until I see the part of the Limo driving into the plaza and the clearer version of the fatal shot, I’m ain’t buying any of that crap !”]
          The fact is, the film has been extremely altered, it has been totally manipulated ! All of film producers in Hollywood, as well as 50 on-sight witnesses including the police, swear it was manipulated. I agree with their decisions as well as the fact, the Z-Film does not show when the Limo came to a stop to allow the fatal shooter to do what he did ! Without the proof of the Limo coming into the plaza from off Elm Street declares the Z-Film has been manipulated.

          Do I have to type all that just to say it’s a “Load of Crap” ?

                1. I have read Horne’s commentary on this countless times. I don’t buy it. It is a convoluted issue to be sure, but in the final assessment I agree with Roland Zavada, that the anomalies in the film were created by the sprocket mechanism of the camera which allowed light through the sprocket holes creating the “ghost images” we see, These ghost images are simply double exposures of part of the previous image. And there is the crux of the matter, if anything had been spiced out the ghost image would be, not from the direct past image but of something else. As it turns out all of the ghost images follow the exact procession of the prior image-present image flow.

                  “When you consider that no one else, not even the best camera experts in the world, realized the mechanism which caused the ghost-like images for over 34 years, it seems highly unlikely that the conspirators would know about this characteristic of Zapruder’s camera and be able to duplicate it within a few hours.”~Anthony Marsh

                  These ghost images are hard to distinguish in 3rd, 4th and more generation copies of the film that many researchers have used for analysis over the years. The newest digital enhanced versions now show them in stunning clarity, and as I pointed out above, if any frames are sliced out the ghost image will not correspond to the frame just previous. Not having any idea of what caused these images at the time, anyone attempting to fake the film wouldn’t have known to address this problem.

                  Now I want to note another problem here, Horne is not a photo expert, and is not in the position to make original claims as to the photography. He gets his input from others. Those he consults in the matter are not reliable in my opinion.

                  The frame at the bottom of this line (at this point) is a discussion on Horne’s assertion that the sign seems to be sliced with a razor, is in my view a complete misinterpretation of what this image shows – as explained below.

              1. Okay, Oliver Stone. I was speaking to the Hollywood Research Group that Doug Horne said were examining the enhanced digital HD slides. Stone hasn’t done this, he is just repeating the chatter about all of this.

                If you can find a “Hollywood producer” that has actually done a real examination of the film, lets have that info with citations.

              2. A note on aerial printing, that is shooting on an animation stand, and using a clear cell to paint changes on a photo underneath: A photograph used as the background for this process would be a 2nd generation in the subsequent rephotograph.
                . . . . . .
                “…If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated ‘original’ created with an optical printer at the CIA’s secret film lab in Rochester.”~Horne
                . . . . . .
                “If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film..”

                What if McMahon is not correct? He was interviewed July 14, 1997. That is close to 34 years after the events he is recalling. For myself, that is enough to give pause to accepting his memory is correct.

                My note on aerial printing [process printer] is relevant to this situation. This 16mm dupe in itself would be a 2nd generation film.

        2. The reason Zapruder didn’t catch the limo coming around the corner is that the motorcycles were so far in advance that he wasn’t sure when the motorcade would come in view, he was concerned about having enough film. So he stopped filming until he saw the limo, it took just a couple seconds for him to begin shooting again. Analysis of the film shows only that the camera stopped recording and then began recording again – nothing can be said to have been cut out at that point.

          A “clearer version of the head shot” may be desired, but it is what it is, and that is pretty clear and dynamic. That it doesn’t match the preconceptions that Jeffy has drawn from the psychobabble of Fetzer and crew is the real issue.

          1. When you look at the erratic aspect of that beginning sequence of the film, this is why it looks erratic because frames of the film are missing.

  38. I want to make note here, primarily for myself and any others who have listened to Fetzer’s interview with Doug Horn. In that interview Horn goes on to great length about a “Hollywood Research Group” that was making hi-res HD scans of the high quality prints from the JFK museum. He claimed that several of the group had found “obvious blacking out of the back of Kennedy’s head wound”
    That interview can be heard here, near bottom of page:

    This interview with Horn took place in 2010. It has now been 4 years, and there has been no more mention of the results this “Hollywood Research Group” has come up with.

    Where is it? Did they just fade away and forget about it? Did they ever actually exist?

    I am most concerned about this, first of all because of the shit that both Fetzer and Horn talked about Zavada, implying that he was being disingenuous in his findings in his report on the Zapruder camera, and the extent of supposition used by both Fetzer and Horn in their discussions.

    At this point I am more inclined to doubt Horn than Zavada, Especially as Horn has linked up with Fetzer’s PR firm to promote his books.

    1. I don’t know how old you are but I’m 63 and I went through two weeks of the assassination stuff on TV. The only film they had was the rear-view of the fatal shot. Without a doubt, the brake lights were blaring, for the kill shot. I’ve never been able to find that film again, and I’m certainly not going to disprove what I saw. The Z Film went into hiding and nobody knew where it went, only that it existed. I’m not about to spend the next 40 years trying to prove what has already been dis-proven thousands of times since it came out. I can only say, our government was involved in killing JFK and numerous (150) collateral witnesses. I’m not about to commend any other stories trying to connect the dots to Lee Harvey Oswald….period. He was an innocent man doing his job. It’s up to you to figure out what job he was doing but as for me, I already know.

      1. I already told you I am 67 in a comment above Jeffy.

        I have never heard of a film being shown of the assassination on TV in the two week period following the event. It seems you are referring to the Nix film which was not broadcast on TV in that time period.

        I have not made a case connecting Lee Harvey Oswald as a shooter, let alone the assassin.

        Frankly I don’t care one bit whether I convince you of anything Jeffy. This material I am posting is for the general readership of T&S. So don’t feel you have to answer every one of my comments – in fact I would prefer you didn’t.

  39. sign in Z-filmSign

    Horne writes: “Frame 220 depicts JFK’s limousine emerging
    from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. In the HD scan of this frame, the
    upper right corner of the sign looks as though it had been cut off by a
    razor blade (i.e., it does not have a rounded edge as it does in other
    . . . . .
    This is an optical illusion caused by shadows in the background blending with the hue of the color of the sign. Note the brightest red motorcycle light is below the darker hue than the sign strip running to the edge where we see Jackie Kennedy’s head and hat at the spot where the sign’s curved corner is. That whole area seems to be a blend of “ghost image” (double exposure) over the real image of the shot as the sign itself seems to step-up in the line extending from that brightest red motorcycle light to Mrs Kennedy’s head.

    To really study the above frame shot, one needs to copy it to one’s own picture viewer and blow it up to see the details I speak to here.

  40. This is a test to see where this comment ends up. Craig removed Ms Kluens “double” of one of her comments above, and I think we have that sequencing problem in the comments again.
    If this posts at the bottom of the line were fine, if elsewhere…we are boinky again.

  41. “Second, Richard Stolley’s recollection that the original film went to LIFE’s printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, for immediate processing, obviously requires reexamination ….

    . Third, the Secret Service and the CIA, obviously working together on the project, must have rushed the 8 mm camera original film from Washington, D.C. to the “Hawkeye
    Plant” in Rochester by air, immediately after Bill Banfield’s photo technicians had run off the last enlargement prints for the McCone briefing boards, just prior to dawn on Sunday morning. The CIA’s Kodak-staffed lab in Rochester would have had most of the day (probably about 9 or 10 hours), using an optical printer such as the Oxberry commonly used by Hollywood’s special effects wizards, to remove whatever was objectionable…”~Horne

    . . . . . .

    Horne’s tale of the original film being intercepted is built primarily on conjecture. So there is also the possibility that the original film did go to LIFE’s printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, and the film used at the processing plant was a 2nd generation copy that we know the Secret Service already had. That would then make the product of the step printer a 3rd generation copy.

    Oxberry Optical Printer


    As in any analog process, every optical “pass” degraded the picture, just like a photocopy of a photocopy (although the degradation can be greater with contact printing than with optical printing).[2] Also, since a new, different piece of film was exposed and printed, matching the exact colors of the original was a problem. Usually the printer work was limited to only the parts of a dissolve needing the effect. The original footage was spliced mid-shot with the optically-printed portion, often resulting in an obvious change in image quality when the transition occurs.

    Other problematic artifacts depend on the effect attempted, most often alignment inaccuracies in matte work. For this reason, shots intended to be manipulated via optical printer were often shot on larger film formats than the rest of the project. Otherwise obsolete formats, such as VistaVision, remained in use for many years after they had been abandoned for the conventional shooting of scenes because their larger frame size provided greater clarity, reduced grain size when reprinted and any alignment problems were not as conspicuous.

    . . .
    So there are a few issues to address here.

    One is that it isn’t purported that the Z-film was printed in a larger format. It is said that a new 16mm unsplit version was the product of the ‘manipulation’. The effects are said to have been done by rephotographing the large prints made for the presentation boards.

    Secondly creating travelling mattes for the special effects is not simply a matter of using an optical printer. Such travelling mattes must be created as a second and more time consuming process. Asserting that the presentation prints were used would entail an animation table, not a process printer. This would mean hand painting the travelling matte one cell at a time. And if only certain sections were to be done this way, the problem arises as to matching that work with the sections not animated.

    These problems combine into a situation wherein it is almost impossible to believe it could be accomplished in that 9 to 10 hour window – which is itself in doubt.

    On top of this all of these issues become moot when the ghost-image situation is added into the equation. That is explained in detail here already, but the bottom line is ANY splicing or mixing films together to create the ‘effects’ cannot have happened because of the flow of the ghost images as a portion of the image before it proceeds uninterrupted. This proves there were no splices in the film whatsoever. I refer you back to Roland Zavada and Anthony Marsh once more.

  42. Only an op would continue to insist that the Zapruder film is authentic. It is not even internally consistent, since you can see the blow-out in frames 374 and 375 that has been painted over in black in frames 314 to 317. And the films are not mutually consistent, since in the Nix, Clint Hill climbs further onto the trunk and Jackie further back that occurs in the Zapruder.

    Here is my most recent interview about this on 50,000watt WCCO in Minneapolis/St. Paul about JFK:

    In the article, I am very appropriately characterized as “a conspiracy analyst”. See especially

    For more proof of the limo stop, which I now think may have lasted as long as 30 seconds, see “The JFK Horsemen” and “The JFK Horsemen, Part 2″ on YouTube. Case closed.

    1. “Only an op would continue to insist that the Zapruder film is authentic.”~jfetzer2012

      I could respond with: Only an op would continue to insist that the Zapruder film is fake.

      Fetzer claims: ” in the Nix, Clint Hill climbs further onto the trunk and Jackie further back that occurs in the Zapruder.”

      The Nix film has Hill climbing up and pushing Jackie back, and Hill does appear to be on one knee on the trunk at this point – but what we can tell from the Z-film at this point – as from Zapruder’s POV there are bushes obscuring Hill to some degree – but as we can see he is up higher as he pushes Jackie down [Frame 409 – of the new digital enhanced and steadied version] and this matches his hieght and pose of the Z-film.

      If one watches the film [presented above in this thread] of all three films in synch in the same frame, all of the actions are at the exact same sequence in all three. There is no variance but in the POV of the three films.

      I stand by the analysis I have presented here this year.

      Fetzer must address the issue of the “ghost-images” as being within the same flow throughout the film, which in itself is proof of no splices being made.

      1. Typo and misspelling alert as to the above post>>

        It should read – *and this matches his height and pose of the Nix film.*

        1. As though we needed any more proof that this guy is a complete fraud, here is an earlier article I published, “Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More proof of JFK film fakery” on VT at
 And his massive ignorance about research on the film could not be more manifest than his remarks about the ghost panels, which John Costella, Ph.D., analyzed and explained in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). To recreate the ghost panels, they had to reshoot each frame at Hawkeyeworks, which is the reason the film as a whole is a fabrication. There is no need for anyone to ever take this guy seriously again. He is pathetically corrupt and inept.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s