Zapruder Film Alteration
(My apologies. I recently realized I had not fully completely finished this article and left out some important information that I may have mentioned, but didn't expand on. Updated 6/2024 to fix that unintended oversight.)
Sections:
Sections:
-----
Introduction
"One of the enduring mysteries about the shooting was that literally dozens of witnesses claimed the presidential limo slowed to a dead crawl and perhaps even stopped as shots rang out. Yet the Zapruder film appears to show the motorcade rolling at a constant speed of 11 mph on the fateful journey down Elm Street."
-- Bonar Menninger
It's not such a "mystery" if you consider that the film is an altered product. Many researchers agree that frames were removed to hide the limousine stop (which some 40+ witnesses reported, according to various sources), but those same researchers fail to consider that the alterations were more extensive than that.
The value of the so-called "Time-Clock" of the assassination as "evidence" is non-existent. See Episode 4 of my video series. I perhaps didn't discuss Dr. John Costella's work in as much depth as I should have, with his proofs of Zapruder Film fakery, and I did make one small error in my own analysis, but I correct both of those shortcomings in this article. Doug Horne's unveiling of the "Two NPIC Events" is also telling. Zapruder film alteration is also backed by a willingness to alter "still" images (as Linda Willis describes--and what is a film but a series of still images?) as well as certain "anomalies" that should not appear if the film was authentic, but do appear. These anomalies include not just visual impossibilities (like the "jumping lamp post" or limousine flag in front of the bystander's hand) but timing issues such as limousine driver William Greer's impossibly fast head turn.
The evidence is just too overwhelming to accept the extant Zapruder film as "authentic." But the myth that it is the "time-clock" of the assassination is all too pervasive.
The hardest aspect of convincing people that my work is correct is to convince people of Zapruder film alteration. It is such an iconic part of assassination lore that most people just can't believe it's a fabrication, or that our government would dare to alter it. Part 4 of my documentary series is devoted to debunking the Z-film as reliable, as is a chunk of my "Anomalies" article. I have a whole chapter in my "Cut-N-Paste" book on Z-film alteration. I know it's a fake. So do other people who are willing to spend the time to review the evidence. But there are a few things I've learned since even producing my documentary episode, and it's such a critical aspect to the assassination that I'm willing to try one more time to share what I learned in as concise a way as I can.
-- Bonar Menninger
It's not such a "mystery" if you consider that the film is an altered product. Many researchers agree that frames were removed to hide the limousine stop (which some 40+ witnesses reported, according to various sources), but those same researchers fail to consider that the alterations were more extensive than that.
The value of the so-called "Time-Clock" of the assassination as "evidence" is non-existent. See Episode 4 of my video series. I perhaps didn't discuss Dr. John Costella's work in as much depth as I should have, with his proofs of Zapruder Film fakery, and I did make one small error in my own analysis, but I correct both of those shortcomings in this article. Doug Horne's unveiling of the "Two NPIC Events" is also telling. Zapruder film alteration is also backed by a willingness to alter "still" images (as Linda Willis describes--and what is a film but a series of still images?) as well as certain "anomalies" that should not appear if the film was authentic, but do appear. These anomalies include not just visual impossibilities (like the "jumping lamp post" or limousine flag in front of the bystander's hand) but timing issues such as limousine driver William Greer's impossibly fast head turn.
The evidence is just too overwhelming to accept the extant Zapruder film as "authentic." But the myth that it is the "time-clock" of the assassination is all too pervasive.
The hardest aspect of convincing people that my work is correct is to convince people of Zapruder film alteration. It is such an iconic part of assassination lore that most people just can't believe it's a fabrication, or that our government would dare to alter it. Part 4 of my documentary series is devoted to debunking the Z-film as reliable, as is a chunk of my "Anomalies" article. I have a whole chapter in my "Cut-N-Paste" book on Z-film alteration. I know it's a fake. So do other people who are willing to spend the time to review the evidence. But there are a few things I've learned since even producing my documentary episode, and it's such a critical aspect to the assassination that I'm willing to try one more time to share what I learned in as concise a way as I can.
-----
Linda Willis and the Government's Willingness to Alter Pictures
If you have any doubts that there was a willingness to alter assassination photographs, listen to Linda Willis Linda Willis describe alterations to her father's assassination photographs (https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553 starting about 17:21). In the last few minutes of the interview, she describes how her father turned his film over to the Secret Service immediately after the assassination. There were "trains" that were visible in the original images. But when her father got the pictures back from the Secret Service, the trains were "missing." Linda Willis felt that her father's pictures had been "physically altered" because "something important showed in the film that the Secret Service did not want known."
If you have any doubts that there was a willingness to alter assassination photographs, listen to Linda Willis Linda Willis describe alterations to her father's assassination photographs (https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553 starting about 17:21). In the last few minutes of the interview, she describes how her father turned his film over to the Secret Service immediately after the assassination. There were "trains" that were visible in the original images. But when her father got the pictures back from the Secret Service, the trains were "missing." Linda Willis felt that her father's pictures had been "physically altered" because "something important showed in the film that the Secret Service did not want known."
At any rate, the film's "chain of custody" is not as rock-solid as one might think. Life magazine purchased the still-life rights to the film on the day after the assassination, and the motion picture rights on the following Monday, when it was learned that Zapruder had retained the motion picture rights to the film and was intending to sell them (the bidding war that Dan Rather attended). Except, the bidding war did not actually take place. The Life representative met privately with Zapruder before the other bidders could place their bids, and purchased the motion picture rights from him. But Life did not publish frames right away. The first edition of the magazine did not come out until the middle of the following week. It was learned that Life had a friendly relationship with the CIA, as Carl Bernstein points out in his exposé article "The CIA and the Media" at https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977. That delay in publication of certain frames is important.
It's also important to note that Life bought both the still picture rights to the film, and the motion picture rights to the film. Curiously, they never exploited the motion picture rights, never made a dime off the great expense they incurred to get those rights. They only published isolated individual frames.
But between the Saturday morning when Life bought the still picture rights and the Monday when Life bought the motion picture rights, something critical happened with the film. ARRB Analyst Doug Horne, as part of his ARRB duties, interviewed individuals who worked at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) and discovered that there were not one, but two events at NPIC wherein the Zapruder film was processed for the purpose of making "briefing boards." These two events, when taken together, are strong indicators of alteration--especially in light of the statements of the man who worked on the first event. See Doug Horne's article "The Two NPIC Film Events: Signposts Pointing to theFIlm's Alteration" at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/douglas-p-horne/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-filmsalteration/.
The first event took place the Friday night into the Saturday morning hours following the Friday afternoon assassination. A film was brought into the NPIC in order to have briefing boards made of blown-up images from the film. This event was handled by preeminent film specialist Dino Brugioni. Brugioni's film was a "slit" 8mm film. (Zapruder's camera was such that it recorded images onto half of a 16mm film at a time. One one side of the film is filled, the camera reverses, to record the other side of the film. The assassination sequence was recorded on the left side of the film. The film was processed (with 3 copies made), and then the original film and the copies were "slit" down the middle and spliced together to make one longer strip of 8mm film with sprocket holes on one side.
This is important to note: the film and all 3 copies were "slit" and spliced in Dallas immediately after the assassination.
But then a second event at NPIC took place, after Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby. This event was handled not by Dino Brugioni, but by two men: Homer McMahon and his assistant Morgan Hunter (plus a third man, who remains unnamed). This event involved an "un-slit" 16mm film brought to the NPIC for a new set of briefing boards to be made, by Secret Service agent "Bill Smith" (likely a pseudonym) who admitted to the two men that he had just come from the CIA's secret "Hawkeye Works" photographic laboratory in Rochester, NY. Horne's conclusion that this un-slit film was masquerading as an out-of-camera original is one that I cannot disagree with. Because not only were the original Zapruder film and all of the copies slit as part of the normal processing immediately after the assassination, but also the content of the film appeared to be different. The content of the second film more or less matches what the extant film is known to show, but not what Dino Brugioni remembered processing in the first NPIC event.
Here are two videos of Brugioni describing what he saw in his "first NPIC event"--which is different from what the extant Z-film shows.:
-----
Proof of Zapruder Film Alteration -- the Work of Dr. John P. Costella
Dr. John P. Costella, like many other JFK Assassination researchers, is a very intelligent person. He has a background in physics and optics and computers. He has made an extensive study of the Zapruder Film, and his website (https://johncostella.com/jfk/) contains a lot of interesting information. His background and bona fides in his research into the Zapruder Film are as follows:
John P. Costella, Ph.D., is an Australian-American who has three degrees and a graduate diploma from the University of Melbourne, Australia's top university: he graduated top of his class for both a Bachelor of Engineering with Honours in Electrical Engineering (US equivalent: BS in Electrical Engineering) and a Bachelor of Science with Honours in Physics (US equivalent: BS in Physics), then earned a Ph.D. in Theoretical Particle Physics, specializing in electrodynamics (of which optics is a subset), and later a Graduate Diploma of Education (US equivalent: BA in Education) which qualified him to teach at high school level. He has monster math skills and writes computer programs for “research and fun.” Between 2000 and 2007 he applied his skills in physics, engineering, mathematics, software coding, etc., to writing programs to correct the optics of the Zapruder camera, deblur photos (and Z frames), and remove or transform the effects of changes of perspective. After a postdoctoral research position at the University of Melbourne in theoretical particle physics he worked as a math teacher for almost a decade to make ends meet, then worked for the Department of Defence in Australia, and then after a few data science jobs moved with his wife Sally to San Francisco, CA, in 2012 to work for Facebook as a Software Engineer (the “research and fun" becoming his day job). In an early side-project he overhauled Facebook's image resizing code to fix the quality of all the photos on Facebook, using the world-beating Magic Kernel Sharp algorithm that he invented, and as another side-project in 2015 helped move Facebook-owned Instagram across to use that code. Since 2016 he has continued at Facebook (now Meta) as a Security, Privacy, and Insider Threat Engineer, moving with Sally to Washington, DC, in late 2017, where he continues to work and live. In March 2020 they became US citizens.
Costella, with his extensive scientific background, undertook a technical and scientific study of the Zapruder Film. Costella states:
The Zapruder film was scientifically examined. It was found that, while most of it looks completely genuine, some of the images are impossible. They violate the laws of physics. They could not have come from Zapruder’s home movie camera.
Zapruder’s film is a very good forgery. It is almost perfect. Some mistakes took almost 40 years to find.
It was also scientifically proven that Zapruder’s film could not be just changed a little bit. For any of it to be altered in this way, a whole new film had to be created. The whole film is a fake!
Among his other contributions to assassination literature, Costella provides a collection of individual frames of the Zapruder Film on his website. Whereas the "Lightbox" source is my "go-to" source for most Z-film images, Costella's website provides my source for the "missing" frames. I asked him about the source images for his studies, including the "missing frame" sources, and this was his response:
My source of all Z frame images, except the ones missing from the "camera original" in the National Archives, was MPI's DVD Image of an Assassination which came out in 1998 (and which I bought a copy of at the Sixth Floor in 2003), which was supposed to be the reference public copy made available to researchers under the JFK Act. Back when I started, around 2000, researcher David Wimp (now famous for Tink Thompson's fiasco in Last Second in Dallas) kindly captured them all off the MPI DVD and emailed them to me, one by one, over the course of some weeks. The frames missing from the "camera original" film were taken from one of Robert Groden's DVDs, which included the Secret Service copies made before LIFE damaged the original (as the official story goes, anyway), but didn't copy the imagery between the sprocket holes.* (email to me dated 12/28/2022)
*As I've shown elsewhere, the inter-sprocket imagery (especially for the missing 207-212 frames) should have shown George Hickey picking up the AR-15. I think they were just too difficult to alter in the given time period. There's a reason the sprocket imagery for these frames are not publicly available, even though they should have been copied when the original film copies were made. --Denise
In "A simple introduction to the JFK Assassination film hoax" (https://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/), Costella provides analysis of JFK's head movement at the time of the Z313 "head shot" as showing a slight forward movement before the infamous "back, and to the left" head snap. He offers the 3 most popular explanations for this movement (1], hit by 2 separate bullets nearly simultaneously; 2] "jet effect," and 3] neuromuscular reaction) before offering the fourth: Zapruder Film alteration. He then goes on to explain the various proofs of alteration by pointing out "mistakes" that would have been impossible if the film were a genuine product:
All of these "mistakes" individually indicate that the film is a forged product, and collectively, the case is damning. I recommend reading Costella's original work, as I'm sure my summaries won't do it the justice they deserve, but I'll try to explain these mistakes below, though in reverse order of Costella's original presentation, because I think Costella's order is most technical to least technical, and I prefer to start with the simplest to understand. The "sign mistake," as I see it, involves the most technical analysis, whereas the "wound mistake" is something readily apparent to the most lay of readers. So apologies for reversing Costella's order, but here is a summary of his proofs of Zapruder Film forgery:
Dr. John P. Costella, like many other JFK Assassination researchers, is a very intelligent person. He has a background in physics and optics and computers. He has made an extensive study of the Zapruder Film, and his website (https://johncostella.com/jfk/) contains a lot of interesting information. His background and bona fides in his research into the Zapruder Film are as follows:
John P. Costella, Ph.D., is an Australian-American who has three degrees and a graduate diploma from the University of Melbourne, Australia's top university: he graduated top of his class for both a Bachelor of Engineering with Honours in Electrical Engineering (US equivalent: BS in Electrical Engineering) and a Bachelor of Science with Honours in Physics (US equivalent: BS in Physics), then earned a Ph.D. in Theoretical Particle Physics, specializing in electrodynamics (of which optics is a subset), and later a Graduate Diploma of Education (US equivalent: BA in Education) which qualified him to teach at high school level. He has monster math skills and writes computer programs for “research and fun.” Between 2000 and 2007 he applied his skills in physics, engineering, mathematics, software coding, etc., to writing programs to correct the optics of the Zapruder camera, deblur photos (and Z frames), and remove or transform the effects of changes of perspective. After a postdoctoral research position at the University of Melbourne in theoretical particle physics he worked as a math teacher for almost a decade to make ends meet, then worked for the Department of Defence in Australia, and then after a few data science jobs moved with his wife Sally to San Francisco, CA, in 2012 to work for Facebook as a Software Engineer (the “research and fun" becoming his day job). In an early side-project he overhauled Facebook's image resizing code to fix the quality of all the photos on Facebook, using the world-beating Magic Kernel Sharp algorithm that he invented, and as another side-project in 2015 helped move Facebook-owned Instagram across to use that code. Since 2016 he has continued at Facebook (now Meta) as a Security, Privacy, and Insider Threat Engineer, moving with Sally to Washington, DC, in late 2017, where he continues to work and live. In March 2020 they became US citizens.
Costella, with his extensive scientific background, undertook a technical and scientific study of the Zapruder Film. Costella states:
The Zapruder film was scientifically examined. It was found that, while most of it looks completely genuine, some of the images are impossible. They violate the laws of physics. They could not have come from Zapruder’s home movie camera.
Zapruder’s film is a very good forgery. It is almost perfect. Some mistakes took almost 40 years to find.
It was also scientifically proven that Zapruder’s film could not be just changed a little bit. For any of it to be altered in this way, a whole new film had to be created. The whole film is a fake!
Among his other contributions to assassination literature, Costella provides a collection of individual frames of the Zapruder Film on his website. Whereas the "Lightbox" source is my "go-to" source for most Z-film images, Costella's website provides my source for the "missing" frames. I asked him about the source images for his studies, including the "missing frame" sources, and this was his response:
My source of all Z frame images, except the ones missing from the "camera original" in the National Archives, was MPI's DVD Image of an Assassination which came out in 1998 (and which I bought a copy of at the Sixth Floor in 2003), which was supposed to be the reference public copy made available to researchers under the JFK Act. Back when I started, around 2000, researcher David Wimp (now famous for Tink Thompson's fiasco in Last Second in Dallas) kindly captured them all off the MPI DVD and emailed them to me, one by one, over the course of some weeks. The frames missing from the "camera original" film were taken from one of Robert Groden's DVDs, which included the Secret Service copies made before LIFE damaged the original (as the official story goes, anyway), but didn't copy the imagery between the sprocket holes.* (email to me dated 12/28/2022)
*As I've shown elsewhere, the inter-sprocket imagery (especially for the missing 207-212 frames) should have shown George Hickey picking up the AR-15. I think they were just too difficult to alter in the given time period. There's a reason the sprocket imagery for these frames are not publicly available, even though they should have been copied when the original film copies were made. --Denise
In "A simple introduction to the JFK Assassination film hoax" (https://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/), Costella provides analysis of JFK's head movement at the time of the Z313 "head shot" as showing a slight forward movement before the infamous "back, and to the left" head snap. He offers the 3 most popular explanations for this movement (1], hit by 2 separate bullets nearly simultaneously; 2] "jet effect," and 3] neuromuscular reaction) before offering the fourth: Zapruder Film alteration. He then goes on to explain the various proofs of alteration by pointing out "mistakes" that would have been impossible if the film were a genuine product:
- "The sign mistake," (i.e., the "pincushion mistake")
- "The blur mistake,"
- "The lamppost mistake" (not the "jumping lamp post," but an angle mistake),
- "The fast-forward mistakes,"
- "The blood mistake," and
- "The wound mistake."
All of these "mistakes" individually indicate that the film is a forged product, and collectively, the case is damning. I recommend reading Costella's original work, as I'm sure my summaries won't do it the justice they deserve, but I'll try to explain these mistakes below, though in reverse order of Costella's original presentation, because I think Costella's order is most technical to least technical, and I prefer to start with the simplest to understand. The "sign mistake," as I see it, involves the most technical analysis, whereas the "wound mistake" is something readily apparent to the most lay of readers. So apologies for reversing Costella's order, but here is a summary of his proofs of Zapruder Film forgery:
-----
Costella's The Wound Mistake
This one is easy to miss when viewing the Zapruder Film as a motion picture, but when looking at individual frames, it becomes more apparent. You can see the "wound mistake" in frame 314 of the film:
This one is easy to miss when viewing the Zapruder Film as a motion picture, but when looking at individual frames, it becomes more apparent. You can see the "wound mistake" in frame 314 of the film:
Costella's stabilized .gif of frames 312, 313, and 314 of the Zapruder Film
In frame 314, the wound is not at the top-right of Kennedy's head, but in his face!
And as another researcher, Dr. David Mantik (among others) correctly notes, not one of the witnesses at Parkland Hospital or at the autopsy noted a wound in this location at all! To a person, these witnesses all described a massive hole at the back of JFK's head.
Costella also briefly describes what researcher David Lipton has called "the blob":
And as another researcher, Dr. David Mantik (among others) correctly notes, not one of the witnesses at Parkland Hospital or at the autopsy noted a wound in this location at all! To a person, these witnesses all described a massive hole at the back of JFK's head.
Costella also briefly describes what researcher David Lipton has called "the blob":
None of these frames seems to match the purported autopsy photograph showing the wound at the top-right of Kennedy's head:
However, Costella's analysis is limited to the Zapruder Film. Other analyses give reason to suspect the purported autopsy photos as also undergoing alteration. Part 5 of my documentary series gives credible reasons why those are believed to have also been faked. And again, all the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses described a blow-out hole at the back of Kennedy's head, not the front.
-----
Costella's The Blood Mistake
This has to do with the "spray" of blood, which only appears for a single frame of the Zapruder Film. The "spray" should be readily apparent for more than a single frame, yet really, only appears in the same frame as the head shot:
This has to do with the "spray" of blood, which only appears for a single frame of the Zapruder Film. The "spray" should be readily apparent for more than a single frame, yet really, only appears in the same frame as the head shot:
To quote Costella: "This spray of blood (from frame 313) should continue to expand in Frames 314 and 315 ... But it’s not there! It has disappeared into thin air! The gray “mist” is still there, but the blood is missing completely.
"If the film was real, the blood should spread out after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in and around the limo." He goes on to give a technical analysis of the color in the film proving that the "spray" has disappeared.
"If the film was real, the blood should spread out after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in and around the limo." He goes on to give a technical analysis of the color in the film proving that the "spray" has disappeared.
-----
Costella's The Fast Forward Mistakes
Here, Costella describes the various means by which the film was altered using 1963 technology (by adding camera "jiggles," trying to keep the "motion picture" version out of public view, ensuring that published image quality was poor, ensuring that any "stabilized" version was only ever shown in slow motion, and ensuring that any such showing would focus on small details that kept attention away from other details), before delving into the analyses showing the film's fakery. Among these are the Connally "hat trick" (the governor apparently flicking his hat when his wrist was supposed to have already been broken by the bullet from the Single Bullet Theory), Nellie' Connally's and William Greer's impossibly fast head snaps, and the forward "lurching" of the limousine's passengers even though the car never stops (or even slows) in the film (despite many witnesses reporting that it stopped, albeit very briefly):
Here, Costella describes the various means by which the film was altered using 1963 technology (by adding camera "jiggles," trying to keep the "motion picture" version out of public view, ensuring that published image quality was poor, ensuring that any "stabilized" version was only ever shown in slow motion, and ensuring that any such showing would focus on small details that kept attention away from other details), before delving into the analyses showing the film's fakery. Among these are the Connally "hat trick" (the governor apparently flicking his hat when his wrist was supposed to have already been broken by the bullet from the Single Bullet Theory), Nellie' Connally's and William Greer's impossibly fast head snaps, and the forward "lurching" of the limousine's passengers even though the car never stops (or even slows) in the film (despite many witnesses reporting that it stopped, albeit very briefly):
Governor Connally very quickly "flicks" his hat even though his wrist has purportedly already been broken by the bullet that purportedly went through Kennedy's throat.
Nellie Connallie's head turns to the rear, then forward, and then to the rear again--but more quickly than humanly possible by even trained athletes.
Limousine driver William Greer also looks to the rear more quickly than is humanly possible, even by trained athletes.
The limousine occupants simultaneously lurch forward, even though the limousine never stops or even slows. Also pay attention to how quickly the Governor falls into Nellie's lap, and how quickly she apparently moves in the opposite direction.
-----
Costella's The Lamp Post Mistake
Costella created this .gif of Zapruder Film frames "stitched" together into a panorama alternating with a similar black-and-white Dealey Plaza view created by the DPD some days after the assassination. The background (e.g., the tree, the bushes, the holes in the concrete structure along Houston Street) made exact matches. However, the Stemmons sign and the lamp post to its right had aspects that should have matched, but didn't. Costella especially noted the angle of the lamppost, which should have matched exactly, but don't. It's the angle of the lamp post that Costella notes as proof of the film's fabrication. In the (color) Zapruder Film, the lamppost leans slightly to the right
Costella created this .gif of Zapruder Film frames "stitched" together into a panorama alternating with a similar black-and-white Dealey Plaza view created by the DPD some days after the assassination. The background (e.g., the tree, the bushes, the holes in the concrete structure along Houston Street) made exact matches. However, the Stemmons sign and the lamp post to its right had aspects that should have matched, but didn't. Costella especially noted the angle of the lamppost, which should have matched exactly, but don't. It's the angle of the lamp post that Costella notes as proof of the film's fabrication. In the (color) Zapruder Film, the lamppost leans slightly to the right
-----
Costella's The Blur Mistake
The Blur Mistake relates to the fact that, given the shutter speed of Zapruder's camera, any movement Zapruder might have made in holding the camera, the motion of the limousine, and the stationary background (although, of course, that bystanders might have been waving), unless each element (limo, background, etc.) was absolutely stationary, each frame of the Zapruder Film would have a certain amount of blur, divided between the background, and the limousine & occupants. For example, this frame would apparently show Zapruder's camera following the limousine, given that the limousine and occupants are in relatively good focus, whereas the bystanders (Charles Brehm and son, with woman behind them) are relatively blurry:
The Blur Mistake relates to the fact that, given the shutter speed of Zapruder's camera, any movement Zapruder might have made in holding the camera, the motion of the limousine, and the stationary background (although, of course, that bystanders might have been waving), unless each element (limo, background, etc.) was absolutely stationary, each frame of the Zapruder Film would have a certain amount of blur, divided between the background, and the limousine & occupants. For example, this frame would apparently show Zapruder's camera following the limousine, given that the limousine and occupants are in relatively good focus, whereas the bystanders (Charles Brehm and son, with woman behind them) are relatively blurry:
But then, despite the fact that much of the film is extraordinarily blurry (Zapruder apparently jiggling the camera), there are frames like this one, in which both the limousine and occupants (note the keyhole below the front door handle) and the background are relatively clear:
You can even see the individual dots/stars on the American flag! This level of clarity would indicate that the camera, the bystander, and the limousine/motorcycle were all relatively motionless. But the Zapruder Film shows the limousine constantly moving at a steady speed, as this Costella .gif of the frames surrounding the above image shows.
Costella goes on to demonstrate how far the limousine moves in these frames and how far it traveled when Zapruder's shutter was closed, and simulates how much blur should appear in the image above. He states: "Either the limo (and everyone in it), or the whole background (and the man and umbrella in the foreground), or some combination of the two, should be blurred by this much. It obviously isn’t!"
Which, of course, is another proof that the image is not authentic.
And, as Costella and others have pointed out, the people in the background oddly aren't even looking at the limousine, which is carrying the "main attraction" of why they were in Dealey Plaza in the first place.
-----
Costella's The Sign Mistake
This proof is the most "technical" of Costella's proofs, and relates to his knowledge of optics. To understand it, one must recognize that the lens of Zapruder's camera created a slight distortion called a "pincushion effect," which visually pulled, ever so slightly, a distortion of the image towards the corners of the frames. Using computer software, this pincushion distortion can be corrected, but in a "camera original" Zapruder Film, it would be expected to appear in every frame. In fact, it does appear in a number of frames, as this Costella .gif shows:
This proof is the most "technical" of Costella's proofs, and relates to his knowledge of optics. To understand it, one must recognize that the lens of Zapruder's camera created a slight distortion called a "pincushion effect," which visually pulled, ever so slightly, a distortion of the image towards the corners of the frames. Using computer software, this pincushion distortion can be corrected, but in a "camera original" Zapruder Film, it would be expected to appear in every frame. In fact, it does appear in a number of frames, as this Costella .gif shows:
Costella overlaid a frame of the Zapruder Film where the sign appears near the middle of the frame (no "pincushion") with one where the sign appears near the sprocket edge (with the "pincushion") and used his software to mathematically remove the pincushion effect. The non-moving background objects (e.g., holes in the cement wall and the Stemmons sign) should line up exactly. But there is a slight discrepancy:
The discrepency is easier to see when the images are not partially transparent. In this Costella .gif, the blue lines show how the holes in the concrete wall and the corner of the wall line up perfectly. The orange lines show the right-most pole holding the sign up and the right-most edge of the sign. They should also line up exactly, but the moving orange lines show that this is not the case:
Costella explains:
If Zapruder’s camera had moved a little between filming these two frames, the sign would appear to shift left or right, or up or down, compared to the background: this is called parallax. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It shows that the sign in the Zapruder film is a forgery!
The road sign is a mistake made by the forgers. They pasted a perfectly rectangular sign into the film frames, without realizing thatthey should have included the pincushion effect. They must have realized their mistake too late: two frames showing this wrong sign were published in Life magazine, just days after the assassination, and millions of printed copies were mailed out to subscribers. The toothpaste was out of the tube! The forgers had to keep this wrong sign in all of the frames that they created for their fake Zapruder film, and hope that no one ever noticed their mistake!
For a very long time, they succeeded: it took 39 years for this mistake to be discovered!
If Zapruder’s camera had moved a little between filming these two frames, the sign would appear to shift left or right, or up or down, compared to the background: this is called parallax. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It shows that the sign in the Zapruder film is a forgery!
The road sign is a mistake made by the forgers. They pasted a perfectly rectangular sign into the film frames, without realizing thatthey should have included the pincushion effect. They must have realized their mistake too late: two frames showing this wrong sign were published in Life magazine, just days after the assassination, and millions of printed copies were mailed out to subscribers. The toothpaste was out of the tube! The forgers had to keep this wrong sign in all of the frames that they created for their fake Zapruder film, and hope that no one ever noticed their mistake!
For a very long time, they succeeded: it took 39 years for this mistake to be discovered!
-----
Other Fun Stuff
One aspect of Costella's work that is somewhat fun to play with is his posted "stabilized" sections of the Zapruder film. If you try stepping through the frames (Go to the YouTube versions of the clips and use the comma and period keys to move frame by frame) and run the clips both forwards and backwards, you can see that the man stepping back onto the curb in the early frames (Phil Willis?) Is actually stepping forward onto the street. If he were stepping backwards off the street, he would be at least glancing to see where he was going. The same holds for the Franzen family after the Z-313 head shot, who seem to be stepping backward away from the curb. However, by ignoring the rest of what is going on in the frame and focusing only on the Franzen family, and running the frames in reverse, the family is actually stepping calmly towards the edge of the grass rather than stepping back away from the curb. They don't turn to look where they are going in forward play. What that means is that sections of frames from the film (probably from that big jump between Z-132 and Z-133) were cut and pasted into the later assassination sequence.
Of course, these observations may not rise to the level of "proof" that Costella and everyone else likes, as they do not conclusively prove film alteration, but it is a fun aspect of Costella's work to play with, especially after one finally accepts that the film is an altered, fabricated product.
One aspect of Costella's work that is somewhat fun to play with is his posted "stabilized" sections of the Zapruder film. If you try stepping through the frames (Go to the YouTube versions of the clips and use the comma and period keys to move frame by frame) and run the clips both forwards and backwards, you can see that the man stepping back onto the curb in the early frames (Phil Willis?) Is actually stepping forward onto the street. If he were stepping backwards off the street, he would be at least glancing to see where he was going. The same holds for the Franzen family after the Z-313 head shot, who seem to be stepping backward away from the curb. However, by ignoring the rest of what is going on in the frame and focusing only on the Franzen family, and running the frames in reverse, the family is actually stepping calmly towards the edge of the grass rather than stepping back away from the curb. They don't turn to look where they are going in forward play. What that means is that sections of frames from the film (probably from that big jump between Z-132 and Z-133) were cut and pasted into the later assassination sequence.
Of course, these observations may not rise to the level of "proof" that Costella and everyone else likes, as they do not conclusively prove film alteration, but it is a fun aspect of Costella's work to play with, especially after one finally accepts that the film is an altered, fabricated product.
-----
Other Evidence of Alteration
Costella gives us the technical "proofs" as to why the film is a fake. The alterations had to have been accomplished by the use of splicing, added blurs, optical effects, and composite imaging via an "aerial printer." Some of that can be seen by "lay" people, without delving into the technical aspects of the film or comparing linear alignments, etc., simply by making a close examination of the individual frames. For example, splices (places where images were joined together, often just by taping). These are not Costella's "proofs, per se, or even his observations (at least, not discussed on his website), but they are nonetheless evidence contributing to the case that the extant Zapruder Film is an altered product. There are other observations (such as Clint Hill disappearing for a single frame, or the "jumping lamp post" or "Zombie JFK Rising from the Dead") that are more subjective than one might like, but they nonetheless constitute further evidence of the Zapruder film's fraudulent nature. I should also mention the work of the late Jack White, who has some interesting discussions about, say, the "6 foot tall woman." (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiHMA3ceBX8 poster by Vince Palamara.) White does a great job describing some of his evidence, but he also has a tendency to jump to conclusions with which I disagree.
Costella gives us the technical "proofs" as to why the film is a fake. The alterations had to have been accomplished by the use of splicing, added blurs, optical effects, and composite imaging via an "aerial printer." Some of that can be seen by "lay" people, without delving into the technical aspects of the film or comparing linear alignments, etc., simply by making a close examination of the individual frames. For example, splices (places where images were joined together, often just by taping). These are not Costella's "proofs, per se, or even his observations (at least, not discussed on his website), but they are nonetheless evidence contributing to the case that the extant Zapruder Film is an altered product. There are other observations (such as Clint Hill disappearing for a single frame, or the "jumping lamp post" or "Zombie JFK Rising from the Dead") that are more subjective than one might like, but they nonetheless constitute further evidence of the Zapruder film's fraudulent nature. I should also mention the work of the late Jack White, who has some interesting discussions about, say, the "6 foot tall woman." (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiHMA3ceBX8 poster by Vince Palamara.) White does a great job describing some of his evidence, but he also has a tendency to jump to conclusions with which I disagree.
-----
The Biggest Splice
There are a multiple splices in the film . Some of these spliced frames are so badly put together that they seem to have been removed from the extant collection of frames (at least in the "Lightbox" source, which is my "go to" source for Zapruder Film frames). Costella managed to get hold of some of these "missing" frames, and has posted them on his website, but a study of the splices (which were noticed by other researchers before me) is instructive.
The first "splice" is so blatant, it doesn't even seem like a splice, but more like a "jump cut"; it appears like Zapruder simply stopped filming while the lead motorcycles were driving down Elm Street (last seen on frame 132), and then started up again once the President's limousine was already on Elm Street (beginning on frame 133).
Except that Zapruder said he "wanted" to film the President turning onto Elm (in front of the building where his business was, and seemed to think that he had filmed the limousine making its turn.
In his 11/22/63 interview with Jay Watson of WFAA-TV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLqOGEBcjnI), Zapruder said, "And as I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn..." And in his Warren Commission testimony (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Zapruder.pdf ) he said, "I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street."
He filmed the limousine turning onto Elm. Which. of course, does not appear in the extant film. I believe that frames from that part of the film were used to assist in making the alterations.
In his Warren Commission testimony, where he was shown frames purportedly after the turn, and Zapruder exhibited some confusion about that in his Warren Commission testimony.
There are a multiple splices in the film . Some of these spliced frames are so badly put together that they seem to have been removed from the extant collection of frames (at least in the "Lightbox" source, which is my "go to" source for Zapruder Film frames). Costella managed to get hold of some of these "missing" frames, and has posted them on his website, but a study of the splices (which were noticed by other researchers before me) is instructive.
The first "splice" is so blatant, it doesn't even seem like a splice, but more like a "jump cut"; it appears like Zapruder simply stopped filming while the lead motorcycles were driving down Elm Street (last seen on frame 132), and then started up again once the President's limousine was already on Elm Street (beginning on frame 133).
Except that Zapruder said he "wanted" to film the President turning onto Elm (in front of the building where his business was, and seemed to think that he had filmed the limousine making its turn.
In his 11/22/63 interview with Jay Watson of WFAA-TV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLqOGEBcjnI), Zapruder said, "And as I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn..." And in his Warren Commission testimony (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Zapruder.pdf ) he said, "I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street."
He filmed the limousine turning onto Elm. Which. of course, does not appear in the extant film. I believe that frames from that part of the film were used to assist in making the alterations.
In his Warren Commission testimony, where he was shown frames purportedly after the turn, and Zapruder exhibited some confusion about that in his Warren Commission testimony.
-----
Zapruder's Confusion
In his WFAA interview, before having had the chance to watch his film repeatedly, Zapruder seems to have missed hearing the first shot that Pierce Allman describes (and I explained in my documentary why witnesses were likely to miss hearing the first shot or two), and he seemed to think that the President was about halfway towards him on Elm Street when he heard a shot and saw the President slump to his left. Zapruder seemed to think it was the "second" shot that struck the President in the head, but added that he couldn't tell for sure how many shots he heard after the first one that he registered hearing, which would be roughly equivalent to the Altgens photo, where Kennedy can already be seen to be in distress.
I understand Zapruder's same-day confusion by what he heard, explained by inattention blindness and so on, But the confusion he exhibited in his Warren Commission testimony about what his film showed should not have existed. He shouldn't have been confused by what his own film showed, because by the time of his testimony, he had already seen his film numerous times. He had shown it to Secret Service, FBI, media representatives (in his bidding wars for both print and motion picture rights), and any number of other people. Doubtless at that point, and before any alterations to the film could have been made, he had seen the film carefully, and alongside individuals who diligently analyzed every last detail as best they could on Zapruder's projector.
But during his testimony, Zapruder said things like about the images purportedly from his film: "they look like--if they were taken from the film I had--there are the ones. I mean, I don't know how to express myself...This is before--this shouldn't be there--the shot wasn't fired, was it? You can't tell from here?"
The explanation for his confusion during his testimony, of course, is that what he was being shown during his Warren Commission testimony did not match what he remembered his film showing. First, he was not shown a motion picture (which is what he had been used to seeing), but some individual frames, specifically these:
In his WFAA interview, before having had the chance to watch his film repeatedly, Zapruder seems to have missed hearing the first shot that Pierce Allman describes (and I explained in my documentary why witnesses were likely to miss hearing the first shot or two), and he seemed to think that the President was about halfway towards him on Elm Street when he heard a shot and saw the President slump to his left. Zapruder seemed to think it was the "second" shot that struck the President in the head, but added that he couldn't tell for sure how many shots he heard after the first one that he registered hearing, which would be roughly equivalent to the Altgens photo, where Kennedy can already be seen to be in distress.
I understand Zapruder's same-day confusion by what he heard, explained by inattention blindness and so on, But the confusion he exhibited in his Warren Commission testimony about what his film showed should not have existed. He shouldn't have been confused by what his own film showed, because by the time of his testimony, he had already seen his film numerous times. He had shown it to Secret Service, FBI, media representatives (in his bidding wars for both print and motion picture rights), and any number of other people. Doubtless at that point, and before any alterations to the film could have been made, he had seen the film carefully, and alongside individuals who diligently analyzed every last detail as best they could on Zapruder's projector.
But during his testimony, Zapruder said things like about the images purportedly from his film: "they look like--if they were taken from the film I had--there are the ones. I mean, I don't know how to express myself...This is before--this shouldn't be there--the shot wasn't fired, was it? You can't tell from here?"
The explanation for his confusion during his testimony, of course, is that what he was being shown during his Warren Commission testimony did not match what he remembered his film showing. First, he was not shown a motion picture (which is what he had been used to seeing), but some individual frames, specifically these:
From Commission Exhibit 885.
It is when shown frame 185 that Zapruder said, "this is before--this shouldn't be there--the shot wasn't fired, was it? You can't tell from here?" But Zapruder had already seen his film multiple times (albeit in color) before his testimony. He shouldn't have been confused about what was on it--unless what he was being shown didn't match what he remembered his film as originally showing. (And what was it that "shouldn't be there"? The Stemmons sign? Something else?)
It was ultimately Arlen Specter, not Zapruder, who "validates" the film, telling Zapruder "Well, they were," meaning that the images were from his film. Zapruder was confused and finally said that the frames looked "like" the pictures he had taken with his camera but seemed to hedge on confirming that the images were the ones he had taken. It was at that point when Specter said, "Well, they were."
The only other point to mention about Zapruder is that he indicates the front of the head blow-out in his WFAA interview, which I point out in my documentary. My thought was that a "rapid head turn" (described by motorcycle officer James Chaney) had confused Zapruder, who was looking through the tiny view finder of his camera. However, after watching the recent National Geographic special "What the Doctors Saw," I have a new theory. Dr. Kenneth Salyer (the only doctor to do so) described scalp lacerations in the temporal/parietal area. Dr. Salyer was describing tears in the scalp, not holes in the bone. So given my assumption that the AR-15 shot exited in the parietal area above the right ear (where James Jenkins saw an apparent small bullet wound), and given that the scalp had already been damaged by the first Oswald shot (the "hair lift" described by Karen Westbrook) and the skull bone fragment ejected by the first shot (which landed near Charles Brehm), it seems logical to assume that the scalp that had ripped to eject that skull fragment, ripped further when the AR-15 bullet exited, creating a flap of scalp that Zapruder was describing. This was a flap of scalp, not a blow-out of bone, that returned to where it had been, which is why Salyer saw lacerations, but not a blow-out hole, which none of the doctors saw.
It was ultimately Arlen Specter, not Zapruder, who "validates" the film, telling Zapruder "Well, they were," meaning that the images were from his film. Zapruder was confused and finally said that the frames looked "like" the pictures he had taken with his camera but seemed to hedge on confirming that the images were the ones he had taken. It was at that point when Specter said, "Well, they were."
The only other point to mention about Zapruder is that he indicates the front of the head blow-out in his WFAA interview, which I point out in my documentary. My thought was that a "rapid head turn" (described by motorcycle officer James Chaney) had confused Zapruder, who was looking through the tiny view finder of his camera. However, after watching the recent National Geographic special "What the Doctors Saw," I have a new theory. Dr. Kenneth Salyer (the only doctor to do so) described scalp lacerations in the temporal/parietal area. Dr. Salyer was describing tears in the scalp, not holes in the bone. So given my assumption that the AR-15 shot exited in the parietal area above the right ear (where James Jenkins saw an apparent small bullet wound), and given that the scalp had already been damaged by the first Oswald shot (the "hair lift" described by Karen Westbrook) and the skull bone fragment ejected by the first shot (which landed near Charles Brehm), it seems logical to assume that the scalp that had ripped to eject that skull fragment, ripped further when the AR-15 bullet exited, creating a flap of scalp that Zapruder was describing. This was a flap of scalp, not a blow-out of bone, that returned to where it had been, which is why Salyer saw lacerations, but not a blow-out hole, which none of the doctors saw.
-----
Other Splices
In addition to the "jump cut" splice between frame 132 (lead motorcycles) and frame 133 (Presidential limousine on Elm Street) there were quite a few more subtle splices. The first splice to be noticed by those studying the film in the Warren Commission documents, was the 208/212 splice. When this splice (on the image labeled "Frame 212") was called out, it was explained as an "accident" that took place in the Life! magazine (who provided the film to the Warren Commission and whose ties to the CIA were described in Carl Bernstein's article "The CIA and the Media") printing lab, and was later determined to be a joining together of frames 208 and 212.
But heck, both 207 and 212, as printed in the Warren Commission documents (with no frames 208-211 in between), are spliced!
In addition to the "jump cut" splice between frame 132 (lead motorcycles) and frame 133 (Presidential limousine on Elm Street) there were quite a few more subtle splices. The first splice to be noticed by those studying the film in the Warren Commission documents, was the 208/212 splice. When this splice (on the image labeled "Frame 212") was called out, it was explained as an "accident" that took place in the Life! magazine (who provided the film to the Warren Commission and whose ties to the CIA were described in Carl Bernstein's article "The CIA and the Media") printing lab, and was later determined to be a joining together of frames 208 and 212.
But heck, both 207 and 212, as printed in the Warren Commission documents (with no frames 208-211 in between), are spliced!
Frames 207 and 212 as printed in the WarreninCommissrion documents are both spliced. The 207 splice can be seen above the white sprocket hole, about half the depth of the sprocket measurement above the hole, as the black line stretching across the frame, and most visible across the top-left portion of the Stemmons sign. (The "shadowed" area of the sign helps hide the splice on the right side of the sign.) But at least the images above and below the splice seem to go together. The "212" splice is more blatant. Note the top of the tree to the far left edge of the frame (frame 208), and the bottom of the trunk further to the left below the black splice line stretching across the frame.
Really?? The people at Life magazine were so careless with the most important film of the century that they cut and spliced the film that was only on temporary loan to them at the time? Color me skeptical. (Although for many years, until I did a deeper dive into Zapruder Film research, I actually believed that story.)
But that wasn't the only splice.
Most were never explained.
Some of them may have been so blatant that the Commission-published frames didn't begin until frame 172, even though, as was eventually learned, the limousine first appears on frame 133.
There were some splices and missing frames in the "original" film that were "recovered" via the same-day copies of the film Zapruder had made and given over to the Secret Service and FBI. These copies should have been exactly like the original film (albeit with a tiny bit of degradation in color/clarity due to their being copies and not the original). However, sprocket area images (for example, showing Hickey in the follow-up car as the President's limousine disappears behind the Stemmons sign) were oddly missing from the copies. Nor are the individual frames of the original copies available on the Internet in their entirety, although John Costella has done some "combined edits" of frame information from the extant damaged original and copy frames.
But that wasn't the only splice.
Most were never explained.
Some of them may have been so blatant that the Commission-published frames didn't begin until frame 172, even though, as was eventually learned, the limousine first appears on frame 133.
There were some splices and missing frames in the "original" film that were "recovered" via the same-day copies of the film Zapruder had made and given over to the Secret Service and FBI. These copies should have been exactly like the original film (albeit with a tiny bit of degradation in color/clarity due to their being copies and not the original). However, sprocket area images (for example, showing Hickey in the follow-up car as the President's limousine disappears behind the Stemmons sign) were oddly missing from the copies. Nor are the individual frames of the original copies available on the Internet in their entirety, although John Costella has done some "combined edits" of frame information from the extant damaged original and copy frames.
-----
Anomalies Indicating Alteration
There are a number of "anomalies" in the Zapruder Film that would have been impossible to appear if the film was authentic. These include:
There may be others, as well.
There are a number of "anomalies" in the Zapruder Film that would have been impossible to appear if the film was authentic. These include:
- Impossibly Fast Body Movements (William Greer's Head Turn, Malcolm Summers' Fall, Charles Brehm's Son's "jump")
- The Brake Light
- The "Circle of Light"
- Kennedy's too-long Left Arm Rising (I used to think it was apparently rising in front of Connally's seat-back, but apparently the white upside down "U" is supposed to be a reflection off Kennedy's seat, and Connally's seat back has entirely disappeared from the film.)
- The Limousine Flag Covering the Hand of the Waving Bystander (known as "DCM" for "Dark Complected Man" among many researchers)
- Disappearing Clint Hill and The "Jumping Lamp Post" (lumped together because they cover the same frames)
- Zombie JFK Rising From the Dead
There may be others, as well.
-----
Impossibly Fast Body Movements (William Greer's Head Turn, Malcolm Summers' Fall, Charles Brehm's Son's "jump")
Something that others have pointed out is the impossibly fast body movements apparent in the film, like limousine driver William Greer's too-fast head turn:
Something that others have pointed out is the impossibly fast body movements apparent in the film, like limousine driver William Greer's too-fast head turn:
from http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/Z%20Disk/Zapruder%20Abraham/Item%20028.pdf
Other impossibly fast movements include the actions of the "falling man" (Malcolm Summers) and the actions of Charles Brehm's son. This excerpt was taken from Michael T. Griffith's article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film" at https://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Griffith/Alteration.html:
* In Z353-356 we see Malcolm Summers diving to the ground. Summers is to the right of James Altgens. In Z353 Summers' left leg is extended most of the way out. But, in the very next frame, Z354, amazingly, the foreleg is bent markedly backward. Can anyone flex their foreleg to that degree so quickly? In 1/18th of a second?
In Z355 Summers' left leg is bent even farther backward. Can anyone move their foreleg that much in 1/9th of a second (from its position in Z353 to its position in Z355)?
Then, in Z356, the left foot seems to be on the ground. Can anyone whip their left foreleg backward and then put their foot on the ground in the space of three frames, 1/6th of a second?
* Another seemingly impossible action in the Zapruder film is the extremely rapid and precise movement of Charles Brehm's son in Z277-287. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second, he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside him, clapping his hands no less. In other words, in Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father, but, just ten frames later, he is standing calmly and steadily beside him and clapping his hands--all in a fraction over half a second. Ten frames of the Zapruder film, calculated at the assumed speed of 18.3 frames per second, equals .56 seconds (or 560 milliseconds).
I attempted to duplicate the speed of the son's movement, but was unable to do so in the manner seen in the film. When I moved myself around a chair fast enough to appear from behind it to beside it in the required time, I was unable to come to a stop the way the son does in the film. In the film the son, after just over half a second, is standing calmly beside his father clapping his hands. I could not duplicate this feat. Again, when I did move myself around the chair fast enough, I could not stop with that kind of speed and precision and come to be clapping my hands by the time I stopped.
While working on the present edition of this article, I conducted a simulation with my eleven year-old son, Jacob. I had Jacob stand behind a chair and asked him to duplicate the actions of Brehm's son as quickly as possible. I showed him exactly what he had to do. Jacob carried out the movements twelve times. With a stop watch in hand, I timed each attempt. Jacob's times were as follows: .97, .99, .89, .92, 1.03, .92, .89, .99, .97, .85, .82, and .77, as compared to Brehm's son's amazing time of .56. Jacob was unable to perform the required actions as rapidly as Brehm's son performs them in the Zapruder film. For his last three attempts, Jacob was practically jumping out from behind the chair. And, bear in mind, Jacob was purposely trying to move as rapidly as he could. Yet, he was unable to duplicate the feat of Brehm's son.
I have pressed opponents of alteration to explain this amazing feat of Brehm's son. So far none has been able to do so. They cite the fact that Brehm's son also moves out from behind his father in the Muchmore film. However, as others have noted, the extant Muchmore film is not the original, and some researchers believe the film might have been altered in an attempt to make it roughly conform with the edited Zapruder film.
As I've said in JFK discussion groups on the Internet, I would invite anyone to attempt to duplicate the movement of Brehm's son--to whip around an object, turning sharply in the process, stop on a dime with no need to steady himself, and clap at the same time, all in the equivalent of ten frames, or in just over half a second. To put it another way, to duplicate this movement, a person would need to be standing behind an object one moment and then come to be calmly standing and clapping beside it just 10/18th of a second later. If someone claims he or she can do this, I would invite that individual to videotape the feat and make the tape available for others to view. At this time, I am convinced this movement is impossible, and that this episode is proof of alteration in the Zapruder film.
In Z355 Summers' left leg is bent even farther backward. Can anyone move their foreleg that much in 1/9th of a second (from its position in Z353 to its position in Z355)?
Then, in Z356, the left foot seems to be on the ground. Can anyone whip their left foreleg backward and then put their foot on the ground in the space of three frames, 1/6th of a second?
* Another seemingly impossible action in the Zapruder film is the extremely rapid and precise movement of Charles Brehm's son in Z277-287. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second, he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside him, clapping his hands no less. In other words, in Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father, but, just ten frames later, he is standing calmly and steadily beside him and clapping his hands--all in a fraction over half a second. Ten frames of the Zapruder film, calculated at the assumed speed of 18.3 frames per second, equals .56 seconds (or 560 milliseconds).
I attempted to duplicate the speed of the son's movement, but was unable to do so in the manner seen in the film. When I moved myself around a chair fast enough to appear from behind it to beside it in the required time, I was unable to come to a stop the way the son does in the film. In the film the son, after just over half a second, is standing calmly beside his father clapping his hands. I could not duplicate this feat. Again, when I did move myself around the chair fast enough, I could not stop with that kind of speed and precision and come to be clapping my hands by the time I stopped.
While working on the present edition of this article, I conducted a simulation with my eleven year-old son, Jacob. I had Jacob stand behind a chair and asked him to duplicate the actions of Brehm's son as quickly as possible. I showed him exactly what he had to do. Jacob carried out the movements twelve times. With a stop watch in hand, I timed each attempt. Jacob's times were as follows: .97, .99, .89, .92, 1.03, .92, .89, .99, .97, .85, .82, and .77, as compared to Brehm's son's amazing time of .56. Jacob was unable to perform the required actions as rapidly as Brehm's son performs them in the Zapruder film. For his last three attempts, Jacob was practically jumping out from behind the chair. And, bear in mind, Jacob was purposely trying to move as rapidly as he could. Yet, he was unable to duplicate the feat of Brehm's son.
I have pressed opponents of alteration to explain this amazing feat of Brehm's son. So far none has been able to do so. They cite the fact that Brehm's son also moves out from behind his father in the Muchmore film. However, as others have noted, the extant Muchmore film is not the original, and some researchers believe the film might have been altered in an attempt to make it roughly conform with the edited Zapruder film.
As I've said in JFK discussion groups on the Internet, I would invite anyone to attempt to duplicate the movement of Brehm's son--to whip around an object, turning sharply in the process, stop on a dime with no need to steady himself, and clap at the same time, all in the equivalent of ten frames, or in just over half a second. To put it another way, to duplicate this movement, a person would need to be standing behind an object one moment and then come to be calmly standing and clapping beside it just 10/18th of a second later. If someone claims he or she can do this, I would invite that individual to videotape the feat and make the tape available for others to view. At this time, I am convinced this movement is impossible, and that this episode is proof of alteration in the Zapruder film.
-----
Limo Brake Light
A careful look at the Zapruder Film shows that the limousine brake light can be seen to come on, even though the limousine never seems to stop or slow. Note the brightness of the left-rear brake light in this frame:
A careful look at the Zapruder Film shows that the limousine brake light can be seen to come on, even though the limousine never seems to stop or slow. Note the brightness of the left-rear brake light in this frame:
Z368 (among others) shows the left rear brake light appears to be lit, even though the limousine continues to move down Elm Street.
Dr. Costella argued with me that a reflection off the tail light might create an illusion of it being lit. However, looking at the dashboard and the back of the front seat shows that the rear of the limousine should be in shadow. In addition, the Muchmore film, showing an angle opposite to Zapruder's, also shows the brake light coming on the other (right rear) tail light. (See "The Muchmore film suggests frames were removed from the Zapruder Film" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrX8lsb2WTk)
So while I might believe in one reflection off one tail light, the idea that both tail lights had reflections just seems a little too absurd. In addition, there were many witnesses who described the limousine stopping, albeit for a very brief period of time ("just an instant"). Costella himself includes a page on his website "What Happened on Elm Street: The Eyewitnesses Speak" where he includes statements of 12 witnesses that "The Presidential Limousine Stopped or Almost Stopped." (https://johncostella.com/jfk/eyewitnesses.pdf). So the idea that the bright tail light in the Zapruder film is just a reflection of sunlight doesn't hold much sway.
-----
The Limousine Flag Covering the Hand of the Bystander
In frame Z227, the limousine flag comes between the hand of the bystander known as "Dark Complected Man" (DCM) and the camera's point of view--a physical impossibility in real life:
In frame Z227, the limousine flag comes between the hand of the bystander known as "Dark Complected Man" (DCM) and the camera's point of view--a physical impossibility in real life:
-----
The "Circle of Light"
In the early frames of the Zapruder Film, Kennedy's head is surrounded by diamond-shaped "reflections." Since reflections are not 3-dementional objects, they should not have shadows. Yet some of these reflections do seem to have shadows, especially those on the Follow-up car.
Do actual reflections behave like the group surrounding Kennedy's head? Or is that a special effect that was added to the film later?
In the early frames of the Zapruder Film, Kennedy's head is surrounded by diamond-shaped "reflections." Since reflections are not 3-dementional objects, they should not have shadows. Yet some of these reflections do seem to have shadows, especially those on the Follow-up car.
Do actual reflections behave like the group surrounding Kennedy's head? Or is that a special effect that was added to the film later?
Some of the early frames of the Zapruder film, when Kennedy is supposedly "fine," showing how the "circle of light" distracts from the follow-up car behind Kennedy (where Hickey looks down, and to his left), and helps to hide Kennedy's face.
The resulting effect of these "reflections" serves to hide Kennedy's head and face from scrutiny, while simultaneously focusing attention on the President, who was the main attraction of the motorcade, and to distract attention from the agents in the Follow-Up car--especially the one in the back of the Follow-up car who is looking down and to his left: George Hickey.
-----
Kennedy's Too-Long Left Arm Rising
Another physical impossibility is the motion of Kennedy's left arm, rising into the iconic "throat/chest" grab position. Yes, Kennedy really did seem to clutch at his chest or throat, but his left arm wasn't really this long. I had originally thought that it was rising in front of Connally's seat back, which of course would be a physical impossibility, but after talking with Dr. Costella, I took a second look and realized that the white upside-down "U" shape is actually supposed to be a reflection off Kennedy's seat back. But that doesn't change the fact that his arm is still too long, as the the angle of his left arm in the first image indicates. In the second image, on the right, his left elbow appears to be curled like paper (and why is his face so blank? Costella might argue that's due to blur, but even in blur we should see some indication of color for his eyes, etc. And there's none.
Another physical impossibility is the motion of Kennedy's left arm, rising into the iconic "throat/chest" grab position. Yes, Kennedy really did seem to clutch at his chest or throat, but his left arm wasn't really this long. I had originally thought that it was rising in front of Connally's seat back, which of course would be a physical impossibility, but after talking with Dr. Costella, I took a second look and realized that the white upside-down "U" shape is actually supposed to be a reflection off Kennedy's seat back. But that doesn't change the fact that his arm is still too long, as the the angle of his left arm in the first image indicates. In the second image, on the right, his left elbow appears to be curled like paper (and why is his face so blank? Costella might argue that's due to blur, but even in blur we should see some indication of color for his eyes, etc. And there's none.
Kennedy in Z-206 and Z-208. Note the length of the left arm in contrast to the right. The "white upside down 'U'," which I originally thought was supposed to be Connally's seat back, is actually supposed to be a reflection of the seat back next to Kennedy. (Connally's seat back, meanwhile, never appears in the film. although it should.) However, the color looks nothing like the more gray reflection that appears on the seat back behind Jackie.
Look at yourself in a mirror from any angle, and I dare you t replicate the arm positions Kennedy displays here. I can't do it, and I doubt you can, either. This is the result of film wizardry, not real life.
The presence of these anomalies indicates the use composite imagery. In 1963, this was accomplished via the use of an "aerial optical printer" machine.
ARRB Analyst Doug Horne gives us the time-frame for when the CIA altered the film at its "Hawkeye Works" site in his description of "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events."
The presence of these anomalies indicates the use composite imagery. In 1963, this was accomplished via the use of an "aerial optical printer" machine.
ARRB Analyst Doug Horne gives us the time-frame for when the CIA altered the film at its "Hawkeye Works" site in his description of "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events."
-----
Disappearing Clint Hill and The "Jumping Lamp Post"
These two anomalies are grouped together only because they encompass the same frames. But in 456-459, take a close look at Clint Hill and the lamp post. Frame 456 looks fairly normal. But in frame 457, Clint Hill completely disappears. In frame 458, the lamp post has "jumped" to the other side of the road. In frame 459, there is some "blur," but Clint Hill's left leg and the left rear of the limousine have disappeared in an image that "blur" doesn't really account for. Check it out:
These two anomalies are grouped together only because they encompass the same frames. But in 456-459, take a close look at Clint Hill and the lamp post. Frame 456 looks fairly normal. But in frame 457, Clint Hill completely disappears. In frame 458, the lamp post has "jumped" to the other side of the road. In frame 459, there is some "blur," but Clint Hill's left leg and the left rear of the limousine have disappeared in an image that "blur" doesn't really account for. Check it out:
-----
"Zombie JFK Rising from the Dead"
Gerda Dunckel posted a video on YouTube that is well worth watching: "dead JFK rising from his seat ...(?)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDCJ3Ndvz9M . This video shows Zapruder film frames demonstrating how JFK seemingly rises to sit upright after. having apparently just been shot in the head, just as the Presidential limousine is about to go under the Triple Underpass:
Gerda Dunckel posted a video on YouTube that is well worth watching: "dead JFK rising from his seat ...(?)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDCJ3Ndvz9M . This video shows Zapruder film frames demonstrating how JFK seemingly rises to sit upright after. having apparently just been shot in the head, just as the Presidential limousine is about to go under the Triple Underpass:
-----
Alterations to Autopsy Images
In addition to the altered/fabricated Zapruder Film, there is evidence that both the publicly available autopsy X-rays and the autopsy photographs are also altered forgeries. For more information about how the autopsy images did not match what the Parkland Hospital doctors and Bethesda autopsy participants saw, read "What the Doctors saw--Evidence of Image Alteration". Otherwise, the information below does not appear in the National Geographic documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw.
In addition to the altered/fabricated Zapruder Film, there is evidence that both the publicly available autopsy X-rays and the autopsy photographs are also altered forgeries. For more information about how the autopsy images did not match what the Parkland Hospital doctors and Bethesda autopsy participants saw, read "What the Doctors saw--Evidence of Image Alteration". Otherwise, the information below does not appear in the National Geographic documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw.
-----
Autopsy X-Rays
Just as assassination photographs and the Zapruder Film were altered and changed, the autopsy images (both X-rays and photographs) received similar treatment.
When both the guy who took the X-rays and one of the photographers who took the pictures assert that the public available ones are "fake" and "phony," it really is time to pay attention.
Just as assassination photographs and the Zapruder Film were altered and changed, the autopsy images (both X-rays and photographs) received similar treatment.
When both the guy who took the X-rays and one of the photographers who took the pictures assert that the public available ones are "fake" and "phony," it really is time to pay attention.
Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., is an oncology radiologist, meaning that he looks at X-rays for a living, He had the opportunity to view the so-called "original" autopsy X-rays at NARA, and documented his observations that the , X-rays are, or contain, forgeries. Dr. Mantik's (many online sites, including this one) and Dr. Michael Chesser's analyses of autopsy images, watch the relevant episodes of my documentary series (especially Parts 4 and 5).
As for myself, my contributions to the body of knowledge of surrounding the autopsy X-rays, I had the bright idea of overlaying the "Computer Enhanced" lateral autopsy X-ray over the "Un-enhanced" HSCA-published version of this X-ray, by putting them into different Photoshop layers and playing with the transparency of the top layer, ranging from 0-100%.
What I found was that there was very little correspondence between the two images, in terms of matching "landmarks" such as different portions of the skull or the pieces of the "bullet fragment trail." Proportional re-sizing did not work to get the kind of correspondence one would expect, given that this was supposed to be the same X-ray! The only difference was that one was supposed to be a "computer enhanced" (whatever that meant) version of the other. (I have more to say on what "computer enhanced" means.) In order to get any correspondence, I had to stretch one or the other of the images, and if I stretched one image to make, say, some of the larger "bullet trail fragments" match, the result was that the skull outlines would not match. And vice-versa.
Again, this was supposed to be the same X-ray! The only difference was that one was supposedly "computer enhanced" (whatever that meant) vs. "un-enhanced." The correspondence should have been total, the only difference being, perhaps, increased clarity in the "enhanced" X-ray. Yet they were vastly different.
On a lark, and struck by the visual similarities between an X-ray taken of Kennedy when he was alive (the "pre-mortem X-ray") and the "Computer-enhanced" X-ray, I tried overlaying those two X-rays.
And son-of-a-gun if there wasn't a lot more correspondence between the living X-ray, and the "computer-enhanced" autopsy X-ray, as if both X-rays had been taken from exactly the same angle, at exactly the same difference. Also telling was the fact that I didn't even have to re-size or "stretch" any of the source images to get that correspondence.
So what does "computer-enhanced" mean? It actually means "composite forgery," using the living X-ray as one of the sources to create the composite.
As for myself, my contributions to the body of knowledge of surrounding the autopsy X-rays, I had the bright idea of overlaying the "Computer Enhanced" lateral autopsy X-ray over the "Un-enhanced" HSCA-published version of this X-ray, by putting them into different Photoshop layers and playing with the transparency of the top layer, ranging from 0-100%.
What I found was that there was very little correspondence between the two images, in terms of matching "landmarks" such as different portions of the skull or the pieces of the "bullet fragment trail." Proportional re-sizing did not work to get the kind of correspondence one would expect, given that this was supposed to be the same X-ray! The only difference was that one was supposed to be a "computer enhanced" (whatever that meant) version of the other. (I have more to say on what "computer enhanced" means.) In order to get any correspondence, I had to stretch one or the other of the images, and if I stretched one image to make, say, some of the larger "bullet trail fragments" match, the result was that the skull outlines would not match. And vice-versa.
Again, this was supposed to be the same X-ray! The only difference was that one was supposedly "computer enhanced" (whatever that meant) vs. "un-enhanced." The correspondence should have been total, the only difference being, perhaps, increased clarity in the "enhanced" X-ray. Yet they were vastly different.
On a lark, and struck by the visual similarities between an X-ray taken of Kennedy when he was alive (the "pre-mortem X-ray") and the "Computer-enhanced" X-ray, I tried overlaying those two X-rays.
And son-of-a-gun if there wasn't a lot more correspondence between the living X-ray, and the "computer-enhanced" autopsy X-ray, as if both X-rays had been taken from exactly the same angle, at exactly the same difference. Also telling was the fact that I didn't even have to re-size or "stretch" any of the source images to get that correspondence.
So what does "computer-enhanced" mean? It actually means "composite forgery," using the living X-ray as one of the sources to create the composite.
-----
The HSCA-Published X-ray
The "Un-enhanced" lateral X-ray published in the House Select Committee documents has some very interesting aspects to it. First and foremost is its caption, which describes the image as showing an "occipital defect."
Which is medical-speak for "hole at the back of the head."
In the image below, the caption below the X-ray is original to the HSCA document, not re-touched by me in any way:
The "Un-enhanced" lateral X-ray published in the House Select Committee documents has some very interesting aspects to it. First and foremost is its caption, which describes the image as showing an "occipital defect."
Which is medical-speak for "hole at the back of the head."
In the image below, the caption below the X-ray is original to the HSCA document, not re-touched by me in any way:
From https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm
The head is actually tilted (relative to the orientation of the X-ray) so that the face is towards the lower left. At the bottom of the skull, from left to right, we see one mastoid process, the spinal column, and then the other mastoid process. The "black hole," labeled as the "occipital defect," is indeed at the back of the skull. However, the X-ray is made more difficult to read due to Dr. Mantik's "White Patch," which obscures the facial features, and the darkening of the "Black Hole" which obscures other landmarks. The text of the HSCA documents never specifies whether this is the "right" or "left" lateral. I suspect it is a "left" lateral, since Jerrol Custer testified that he had some difficulty maneuvering the portable X-ray machine to take the left lateral, and reported no such difficulty with the original right lateral, which quite possibly is the one Dr. Ebersole deliberately burned during the X-ray. (Dr. Chesser reports a perfectly circular "burn" mark on one of the extant NARA X-rays, which bears the hallmark of having been added artificially.)
When I suggested to Dr. Mantik that this X-ray had been "flipped" to create the "computer-enhanced" X-ray, his reply to me via email was, "Of course it was!" But again, I actually think it is the left lateral masquerading as a right lateral by virtue of cropping and other photographic tricks, especially in the more widely available "computer-enhanced" version of the "right lateral X-ray." I believe this "computer-enhanced" image to actually be a composite of the left lateral autopsy image superimposed over the right lateral "living" X-ray taken of Kennedy when he was alive. There is actually more correspondence between the "computer-enhanced" X-ray and the "living" X-ray than there is between the HSCA-published X-ray with its "occipital defect" caption and the "computer-enhanced" X-ray.
Notice the bottom of the image, which shows the spinal column and mastoid processes. These were cropped out of the "computer-enhanced" composite. If the "defect" ("black hole") was at the front of the head, it would indicate that a huge chunk of Kennedy's lower face (not the top-right side of his head) had been blown out, which I don't think anyone has ever suggested.
One should note that nowhere in the HSCA documents does it specify whether this is a "right" lateral or "left" lateral X-ray. I believe it is the left lateral X-ray. In the "computer-enhanced" composite, it was merged with the right lateral living X-ray. (In my documentary, I animate a "flip" to turn this into a "right" side X-ray to show the opposite relationship to the "enhanced" X-ray with the right-side "living" lateral X-ray, since the light passing through the X-ray does not distinguish the near side of the skull from the far side of the skull.)
Note what this observation does to everything. The tiny authentic metal fragment on the outer table of the skull (barely visible on the left side of the image as the small "bump" under the detached white spot--is that white spot the "adjacent missile fragment"? Or is the "adjacent missile fragment" the triangular white-shaped thing at the far-right of the image?) , previously thought to be at the back of the skull, is actually at the front of the skull, somewhere in the forehead area.
And son-of-a-gun if that forehead area isn't where some witnesses, like Parkland doctor Dr. Charles Crenshaw and Bethesda navy corpsman Dennis David, described an entry wound.
Dr. Mantik's "White Patch" isn't really hiding anything at the back of the head, but is disguising the facial features at the front of the head. (And when I contacted Dr. Mantik to ask whether the X-ray could have been "flipped" (in the sense of switching right and left, to suggest that the hole that was actually at the back of the head was at the "front" of the head, his e-mail response to me was, "Of course it was!") Dr. Chesser's belief that the facial features were "blacked out" is wrong; they were "whited" out. The bullet fragment trail, which as Dr. Chesser pointed out, doesn't make sense for either an EOP entry or a "cowlick" entry) doesn't travel from the back of the head to the front of the head, but from the front of the head to the back, from a forehead entry. When Dr. Humes pointed to the apparent back of the head in the composite "computer-enhanced" X-ray in his HSCA testimony, he was actually pointing to where the front of the head was in the "un-enhanced" X-ray (but where the back of the head was in the "living" X-ray.) (And did anyone but me notice the sarcastic tenor to Dr. Humes' voice when he added an unprompted comment about what a "pleasure" it was to have that [faked] X-ray, which he had never previously had access to?)
And given the tiny authentic metal fragment (now at the front of the head) and the front-to-back (rather than "back-to-front") bullet fragment trail, it supplies further evidence that the bullet that first struck Kennedy in the forehead fragmented on impact.
When I suggested to Dr. Mantik that this X-ray had been "flipped" to create the "computer-enhanced" X-ray, his reply to me via email was, "Of course it was!" But again, I actually think it is the left lateral masquerading as a right lateral by virtue of cropping and other photographic tricks, especially in the more widely available "computer-enhanced" version of the "right lateral X-ray." I believe this "computer-enhanced" image to actually be a composite of the left lateral autopsy image superimposed over the right lateral "living" X-ray taken of Kennedy when he was alive. There is actually more correspondence between the "computer-enhanced" X-ray and the "living" X-ray than there is between the HSCA-published X-ray with its "occipital defect" caption and the "computer-enhanced" X-ray.
Notice the bottom of the image, which shows the spinal column and mastoid processes. These were cropped out of the "computer-enhanced" composite. If the "defect" ("black hole") was at the front of the head, it would indicate that a huge chunk of Kennedy's lower face (not the top-right side of his head) had been blown out, which I don't think anyone has ever suggested.
One should note that nowhere in the HSCA documents does it specify whether this is a "right" lateral or "left" lateral X-ray. I believe it is the left lateral X-ray. In the "computer-enhanced" composite, it was merged with the right lateral living X-ray. (In my documentary, I animate a "flip" to turn this into a "right" side X-ray to show the opposite relationship to the "enhanced" X-ray with the right-side "living" lateral X-ray, since the light passing through the X-ray does not distinguish the near side of the skull from the far side of the skull.)
Note what this observation does to everything. The tiny authentic metal fragment on the outer table of the skull (barely visible on the left side of the image as the small "bump" under the detached white spot--is that white spot the "adjacent missile fragment"? Or is the "adjacent missile fragment" the triangular white-shaped thing at the far-right of the image?) , previously thought to be at the back of the skull, is actually at the front of the skull, somewhere in the forehead area.
And son-of-a-gun if that forehead area isn't where some witnesses, like Parkland doctor Dr. Charles Crenshaw and Bethesda navy corpsman Dennis David, described an entry wound.
Dr. Mantik's "White Patch" isn't really hiding anything at the back of the head, but is disguising the facial features at the front of the head. (And when I contacted Dr. Mantik to ask whether the X-ray could have been "flipped" (in the sense of switching right and left, to suggest that the hole that was actually at the back of the head was at the "front" of the head, his e-mail response to me was, "Of course it was!") Dr. Chesser's belief that the facial features were "blacked out" is wrong; they were "whited" out. The bullet fragment trail, which as Dr. Chesser pointed out, doesn't make sense for either an EOP entry or a "cowlick" entry) doesn't travel from the back of the head to the front of the head, but from the front of the head to the back, from a forehead entry. When Dr. Humes pointed to the apparent back of the head in the composite "computer-enhanced" X-ray in his HSCA testimony, he was actually pointing to where the front of the head was in the "un-enhanced" X-ray (but where the back of the head was in the "living" X-ray.) (And did anyone but me notice the sarcastic tenor to Dr. Humes' voice when he added an unprompted comment about what a "pleasure" it was to have that [faked] X-ray, which he had never previously had access to?)
And given the tiny authentic metal fragment (now at the front of the head) and the front-to-back (rather than "back-to-front") bullet fragment trail, it supplies further evidence that the bullet that first struck Kennedy in the forehead fragmented on impact.
The JFK "living" X-ray on the left, the HSCA -published "lateral X-ray" (described as showing an "occipital defect") on the right, and the "computer-enhanced" composite of the two in the center.
So the fact is, it wasn't just the Zapruder Film that was altered. It was photographs (e.g., Linda Willis' father's), autopsy photographs (per Floyd Reibe), autopsy X-rays (per Jerrol Custer) and demonstrated by the composite between the "living" X-ray and the HSCA-published X-ray shown above.
Which raises the question: What were they hiding, and why?
I'm pretty sure I know the answer: It was a cover-up of the AR-15 head shot, and the Secret Service's earlier inaction to the Oswald initial head shot.
Which raises the question: What were they hiding, and why?
I'm pretty sure I know the answer: It was a cover-up of the AR-15 head shot, and the Secret Service's earlier inaction to the Oswald initial head shot.