US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication

Email Print



Douglas Horne,
who served as the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs of the Assassination
Records Review Board (ARRB), has now published Inside
the ARRB
(2009), a five-volume study of the efforts of the
board to declassify documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI,
the Secret Service, and other government organizations related to
the assassination of JFK.

As a former
government official, historian, and author, he is speaking out to
disabuse the public of any lingering belief that The
Warren Report
(1964), The HSCA Final Report (1979),
Gerald Posner’s Case
(1963), or Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming
(2007) represent the truth about what is known about
the assassination of our 35th president, even remotely! Indeed,
in relation to a new article, “Birds
of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law
Horne has made a forceful declaration to set the record straight:

I know, from
my former role as a government official on the staff of the ARRB
(from 1995 to 1998), that there is overwhelming evidence of a
government-directed medical cover-up in the death of JFK, and
of wholesale destruction of autopsy photographs, autopsy x-rays,
early versions of the autopsy report, and biological materials
associated with the autopsy. Furthermore, dishonest autopsy photographs
were created; skull x-rays were altered; the contents of the autopsy
report changed over time as different versions were produced;
and the brain photographs in the National Archives cannot be photographs
of President Kennedy’s brain – they are fraudulent,
substitute images of someone else’s brain.

Over and beyond
the medical evidence, however, Horne – in Vol. IV of Inside
the ARRB (2009), has also demonstrated that the home movie of
the assassination known as “the Zapruder film” –
and others that correspond to it, such as the Nix and Muchmore films
– have been massively edited to remove indications of Secret
Service complicity in the crime and to add other events to these
films in order to sow confusion and conceal evidence of the true
causes of death of John F. Kennedy.

There are many
proofs that the film has been fabricated – including that the
driver brought the limo to a halt to make sure he would be killed;
that his brains were blown out to the left-rear; and that a motorcycle
patrolman accompanying the limo rode forward at the time of the
stop to inform Dallas Chief of Police Jessie Curry that the president
had been hit. But none of these events appears in the extant version
of the film, which has been massively edited. That these events
occurred has been established by more than 60 witness reports of
the limo stop, where the wound to the back of his head was confirmed
by 40 witnesses, including virtually all the physicians at Parkland
Hospital, who described cerebellum as well as cerebral tissue extruding
from the wound. The blow-out to the right-front, as seen in the
film, therefore, is not authentic.

Indeed, in
an appendix to Vol. IV, Horne explains that a copy of the film has
now been studied by Hollywood exerts, who found that the blow-out
to the back of his head had been painted over in black in an amateurish
effort to obfuscate the blow out, which can actually be seen in
a few later frames, including 372 and 374. Those who have persisted
in defense of the authenticity of the film have offered three major
arguments – (1) that the features of the extant film correspond
to those of the original processed in Dallas, (2) that there was
an unbroken chain of custody, which precluded the film be changed;
and (3) that the Dealey Plaza films are not only consistent with
themselves but with one another, where the Zapruder could only have
been faked if the others had been as well.

The following
extracts from Inside
the ARRB
(2009), Vol. IV, demonstrate that all three arguments
are fallacious: (1) there are five features of the extant film that
differ from those of the original and (2) that different films were
brought to the NPIC on consecutive days, which vitiates the chain-of-custody
argument. The consistency of the films with one another (3) turns
out to be an interesting question, since they all seem to have been
edited to remove the turn of the presidential limousine from Houston
onto Elm. More significantly, there are subtle inconsistencies between
the films and, most importantly, the Zapruder film is not even consistent
with itself, which proves that it cannot possibly be authentic!
Horne’s new studies thus confirm the previous research that
has previously been reported in The
Great Zapruder Film Hoax
(2003), “New Proof of JFK
Film Fakery” (2007), and “Zapruder JFK Film impeached
by Moorman JFK Polaroid” (2008), where these two articles are

(1) Five
features of the original do not match the extant film

Inside the
ARRB, Vol. IV (2009), p. 1292:


In his long
essay published in 2007 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website,
Josiah Thompson [NOTE: the author of Six
Seconds in Dallas
(1967), an early study based on the Zapruder
film] told us we should all trust [retired Kodak expert on celluloid]
Rollie Zavada’s judgment and defer to his authority:

Zavada has a towering reputation in the field and no conceivable
reason for cooking his conclusions.”

Now that
we have concluded examining his report and Zavada’s changes
of mind since that time, it is clear that he has cooked his conclusions.
In particular, he has ignored – trashed – key testimony:

  • That
    the exposures were not bracketed at the Jamieson lab when the
    three “first day copies” were struck, meaning that the
    three “first generation” copies today should not be
    bracketed copies;
  • That
    a “full frame” aperture (picture plus soundtrack) was
    used when duplicating the Zapruder film, meaning that the intersprocket
    images should be present on the “first generation copies”;
  • That
    the edge printer light was turned off when the original film was
    developed, meaning that there a double registration of processing
    edge prints in the family scenes on the extant “first generation”
    copies; and,
  • That
    the camera original film was slit at the Kodak plant in Dallas,
    meaning that the 16 mm wide, unslit black-and-white copies in
    existence today cannot have originated from the camera original
    film, and are instead indirect evidence that a new “original”
    was created as an unslit 16 mm, double 8 movie (just as Homer
    McMahon’s expert testimony to the ARRB indicates).

Zavada’s opposition to the shooting of a control film in Zapruder’s
actual camera in Dealey Plaza – which was inexplicable and
extremely frustrating when it occurred in 1997 – now takes
on a very different taint, one of possibly intentional sabotage
of the authentication effort by the ARRB staff. An incredible charge,
you say? Not necessarily.

pages 1292 through 1294 as well as 1243 to 1292. And this does not
take into account that the numbers on the extant film are not punched
in the same location as the original. Read Horne to appreciate the
depth of Zavada’s deception.

(2) Different
films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days

Not only has
Doug Horne demonstrated that the strips of film – the actual
celluloid – of the film that was processed in Dallas and the
extant “Zapruder film” are not the same, but he has demonstrated
that David Wrone has misled his audience and distorted the evidence
about the chain-of-custody, where one film – apparently the
original, was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 23 November 1963,
which was an 8mm, slit version, the processing of which Bruno Brugioni,
Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, supervised, which even required
opening a camera store to purchase an 8mm projector, which the NPIC
did not possess, while a second, 16mm unslit version, was brought
to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 December 1963, by Secret Service Agent
“William Smith,” which was handled by Homer McMahon and
by Ben Hunter, who had not been present the night before, and a
very different film.

Inside the
ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1226 and 1227:

First of all, we can now say with certainty that the NPIC never
copied the Zapruder film as a motion picture, even though for years
the NPIC notes had mislead some researchers into believing that
it had. However, Homer McMahon’s rock-solid certainty that
the film brought to him was an original, unslit 16 mm wide, double
8 movie – and that it came from a classified CIA photo lab run
by Kodak at Rochester – implies that McMahon and Hunter were not
working with the true camera original developed in Dallas, but were
instead working with a re-created, altered film masquerading as
“the original.” I suspected in 1997, and I am more certain
than ever today at this writing in 2009, that “Bill Smith”
told the truth when he said that the film he couriered to NPIC was
developed in Rochester – after all, how could he possible make
a mistake about something so elementary, since he brought it from
Rochester to Washington, D.C. himself? He was only lying about one
thing: it could not have been the original film exposed inside Abe
Zapruder’s camera, because we know from the Dallas Affidavit
trail, and from the interviews Rollie Zavada conducted with the
surviving personnel from the Dallas Kodak lab, that the original
film was indeed developed in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963.
If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide,
unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and
if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak
(as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the
Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated “original”
created with an optical printer at the CIA’s secret film lab
in Rochester.

The critical
information published in the ARRB call and meeting reports about
our interviews with McMahon and Hunter in 1997 was published in
full by Jim Fetzer in the year 2000 in Murder
in Dealey Plaza
but was subsequently ignored by Josiah Thompson in a 2007 essay
posted on the Mary Ferrell website (note 14) and was intentionally
under-reported and misrepresented by David Wrone in his 2003 book
on the Zapruder film. This is what many advocates of a specific
hypothesis or a historical position resort to when the heat is on
and their longstanding positions on key issues are threatened by
new evidence: all too often they either ignore the argument of their
opponents as if they do not exist, or they will misrepresent them,
intentionally setting up a false “straw man,” and then
knock it down. In the case of the serious chain-of-custody implications
of the McMahon interviews, Thompson chose to ignore the problem
in 2005 and again in 2007, while David Wrone has not only misreported/misrepresented
their import, but he has overstated the case for authenticity, as
I shall demonstrate below.

In his 2003
book The
Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination
, Wrone
fails to report the specific content of the Homer McMahon interviews
(nor does McMahon’s name even appear in Wrone’s index),
and then completely misreports what I have said about them (on page
127), as follows:

Similarly spurious
is Douglas Orme’s charge (yes, he misspelled my name, too)
that Time, Inc. allowed the film to be altered. In Murder
in Dealey Plaza, Horne argues that Time, Inc. permitted the
film to be taken by Federal Officials for doctoring. [This statement
was followed by endnote 36, which simply refers to page 319 of Murder
in Dealey Plaza, without telling the reader what is on page
319. Page 319 is the interview report I wrote of the Homer McMahon
interview of July 14, 1997 at the National Archives.] Like Zapruder,
however, Time knew it had a treasure in the Zapruder film, and it
would do nothing to endanger the flow of revenue it expected from
those 26 seconds of film. [boldface added by author]

the rest of the article

10, 2010

Email Print