26-04-2010, 12:35 AM
David,
In Chapter 24, the footnote about the possible alteration of the film appears on pages 555-557. In particular, on page 557, you state, "In my view, previously unreported CIA possession of the Zapruder film compromised the film's value as evidence: (1) the forward motion of Kennedy's head, for one frame preceding frame 313, might be the result of an altered film, and if that was so, it made the theory of a forward high-angle shot (see Chapter 2) completely unnecessary; (3) an altered film might also explain why the occipital area, where the Dallas doctors saw a wound, appears suspiciously dark, whereas a large wound appears on the forward right-hand side of the head, where the Dallas doctors saw no wound at all." For the purpose of comparison, here are a few paragraphs from "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid":
In an earlier article, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" that appeared in OpEdNews (February 5, 2008), I laid out multiple indications that the Zapruder film is a fabrication. But none of those proofs even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front--a caption rewritten twice after breaking the plates. And it implicates Abraham Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that that night (HOAX, page 435)!
None of it was true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the mortician! Indeed, the massive defect can even be seen in late frames of the film, including 374. During a phone interview with Joe West, a private investigator, the man who had prepared the body for burial, Thomas Evan Robinson, described the wounds on May 26, 1992, as follows (MURDER, p. 116; HOAX, p. 9):
* large gaping hole in back of head patched by stretching piece of rubber over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.
* smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shape, flapped down (3")
* (approx 2) small shrapnel wounds in face. Packed with wax.
* wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder. To the right of back bone.
* adrenal gland and brain removed.
* other organs removed and then put back.
* no swelling or discoloration to face. (died instantly)
Correct me if I am wrong, but of the points that I cite in describing "the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front--a caption rewritten twice after breaking the plates. And it implicates Abraham Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that that night", you address the blow-out to the right-front seen in the film, the "suspiciously dark" area at the back of the head, and that the Dallas doctors did not observe a wound at the right-front of the head.
Everyone can judge this matter for themselves, but I learned more from BEST EVIDENCE than from any other source when I became serious about JFK research. "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", by the way, only appeared on March 28, 2009, while "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", in which I explained John Costella's discovery that Officer Chaney had motored forward to inform Chief Curry that the President had been shot, which, of course, is also missing from the extant film, appeared on February 5, 2008. "Moorman in the Street Revisited", which appeared in January 2009, provides additional resources related to the study of these issues, including the appendix in which you discuss the apparent manipulation of Mary's testimony by Gary Mack.
In the "Prologue" to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I discuss Noel Twyman's finding from Roderick Ryan, a Hollywood expert of special effects, that the blood spray and the "blob" had been painted in (on page 23), that comparison of the "blob" with the anterior-posterior X-ray "appears to be extremely revealing of a pattern of interlocking deceptions", and that frame 374 reveals the blow-out to the back of the head, which corresponds very closely to McClelland's drawing, Crenshaw's drawing, and especially "Area P" of David Mantik's studies of the X-rays (on page 25), originally published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).
Jim
[quote name='Dean Hagerman' post='190410' date='Apr 22 2010, 02:02 PM']
[quote name='David Lifton' post='190394' date='Apr 22 2010, 10:14 AM']
was published in Chapter 24 in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981
In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.[/quote]
Holy cow!
I dont ever remember reading that footnote in "Best Evidence"
I read BE back in 1987 for the first time and have read it probably 20 times, I do not remember that footnote!
I grabbed my original hardcover copy of BE turned to chapter 24 and there it was!
Great job David, the first time I remember reading about alteration was in Crossfire while reading the section on Jack White back in 1989
[/quote]
In Chapter 24, the footnote about the possible alteration of the film appears on pages 555-557. In particular, on page 557, you state, "In my view, previously unreported CIA possession of the Zapruder film compromised the film's value as evidence: (1) the forward motion of Kennedy's head, for one frame preceding frame 313, might be the result of an altered film, and if that was so, it made the theory of a forward high-angle shot (see Chapter 2) completely unnecessary; (3) an altered film might also explain why the occipital area, where the Dallas doctors saw a wound, appears suspiciously dark, whereas a large wound appears on the forward right-hand side of the head, where the Dallas doctors saw no wound at all." For the purpose of comparison, here are a few paragraphs from "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid":
In an earlier article, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" that appeared in OpEdNews (February 5, 2008), I laid out multiple indications that the Zapruder film is a fabrication. But none of those proofs even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front--a caption rewritten twice after breaking the plates. And it implicates Abraham Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that that night (HOAX, page 435)!
None of it was true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the mortician! Indeed, the massive defect can even be seen in late frames of the film, including 374. During a phone interview with Joe West, a private investigator, the man who had prepared the body for burial, Thomas Evan Robinson, described the wounds on May 26, 1992, as follows (MURDER, p. 116; HOAX, p. 9):
* large gaping hole in back of head patched by stretching piece of rubber over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.
* smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shape, flapped down (3")
* (approx 2) small shrapnel wounds in face. Packed with wax.
* wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder. To the right of back bone.
* adrenal gland and brain removed.
* other organs removed and then put back.
* no swelling or discoloration to face. (died instantly)
Correct me if I am wrong, but of the points that I cite in describing "the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front--a caption rewritten twice after breaking the plates. And it implicates Abraham Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that that night", you address the blow-out to the right-front seen in the film, the "suspiciously dark" area at the back of the head, and that the Dallas doctors did not observe a wound at the right-front of the head.
Everyone can judge this matter for themselves, but I learned more from BEST EVIDENCE than from any other source when I became serious about JFK research. "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", by the way, only appeared on March 28, 2009, while "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", in which I explained John Costella's discovery that Officer Chaney had motored forward to inform Chief Curry that the President had been shot, which, of course, is also missing from the extant film, appeared on February 5, 2008. "Moorman in the Street Revisited", which appeared in January 2009, provides additional resources related to the study of these issues, including the appendix in which you discuss the apparent manipulation of Mary's testimony by Gary Mack.
In the "Prologue" to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I discuss Noel Twyman's finding from Roderick Ryan, a Hollywood expert of special effects, that the blood spray and the "blob" had been painted in (on page 23), that comparison of the "blob" with the anterior-posterior X-ray "appears to be extremely revealing of a pattern of interlocking deceptions", and that frame 374 reveals the blow-out to the back of the head, which corresponds very closely to McClelland's drawing, Crenshaw's drawing, and especially "Area P" of David Mantik's studies of the X-rays (on page 25), originally published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).
Jim
[quote name='Dean Hagerman' post='190410' date='Apr 22 2010, 02:02 PM']
[quote name='David Lifton' post='190394' date='Apr 22 2010, 10:14 AM']
was published in Chapter 24 in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981
In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.[/quote]
Holy cow!
I dont ever remember reading that footnote in "Best Evidence"
I read BE back in 1987 for the first time and have read it probably 20 times, I do not remember that footnote!
I grabbed my original hardcover copy of BE turned to chapter 24 and there it was!
Great job David, the first time I remember reading about alteration was in Crossfire while reading the section on Jack White back in 1989
[/quote]