Sunday, May 30, 2010

Zapruder film alteration debate.

As most of you know I have been a student of the JFK assassination since Nov. 22, 1963. I have read literally hundreds of books and articles about it, visited Dealey Plaza twice and had FBI agent Francis X. O'Neill, who was one of the JFK autopsy witnesses, speak to my classes at Foran High School. In recent years their have been several books that have helped me put more pieces of the puzzle in place about who was actually responsible for the killing and the cover-up. One, JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass, was mentioned in another post. Another is Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong which in my opinion is the Rosetta Stone to the understanding of who Lee Harvey Oswald and his double really were. This book is a masterpiece of research and unfortunately is very expensive for most casual readers at about $100. The next book is actually a five volume set written by Doug Horne entitled Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK. These volumes expose the autopsy for what it was, a complete cover-up including the alteration of JFK's wounds as described by the testimony of witnesses to the autopsy itself, the autopsy photos and the autopsy X-rays. After reading all three of the above mentioned titles one will have a clearer picture as to what happened that weekend and how it affects us today. One chapter of Horne's book is a detailed look at the chain of possession of the famous Zapruder Film that weekend. Doug demonstrates again how the film was altered by using the testimony of witnesses and photographic experts. He has come under fire, as you can expect, by those who still cling to the long debunked theory of a lone crazed assassin. I have posted a section of his response to one of these types below. One can read it in it's entirety by clicking the link. Rather than laughing at the thought that anyone who believes this stuff is crazy, try reading the material published in these books and tell me what you think afterward. Thanks for the heads up B.


THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT in Rollie's paper is this: "The medium is the message." Rollie contends throughout his paper that the Zapruder film could not have been altered using 1963 technology without creating detectable artifacts of forgery. He even quotes Professor Raymond Fielding as saying: "...In my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available; if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny...".

I couldn't agree more. And there IS EVIDENCE of film alteration in the image content of the extant Zapruder film, as I discussed in some detail in the Epilogue to Chapter 14, titled "The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood." The best images we have today of the film have NOT WITHSTOOD PROFESSIONAL SCRUTINY. I even published a black and white image of the most egregious example of this alteration (frame 317) in Volume I of my book. This, I believe, is why Rollie Zavada did NOT discuss the most important section of my chapter---namely, the fact that numerous Hollywood motion picture film experts have developed a strong consensus that the Zapruder film exhibits artifacts which are not like anything they have seen exposed inside a camera when shooting the natural world, and that the film is an altered film. He didn't discuss this important new development in Zapruder film research because he could not refute it. So he just pretended it did not exist. But the problem does exist, and members of the public can see this for themselves by asking for access to the large format (4 X 5 inch) MPI transparencies (made in 1997 from the original film), and the large format (4 X 5 inch) LIFE magazine transparencies (made in 1963 by LIFE) that are held by the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. If you go to the Sixth Floor Museum's website, you can complete a form electronically and request to see these transparencies during a personal visit; all that is required is the money to make a trip to Dallas. (See the frame numbers cited below.)


No comments:

Post a Comment