Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Jim Fetzer

About JFK with Mitch Henck



    A Close Examination of the JFK Assassination Zapruder Film

    In the new release of the Zapruder film by MPI home video, I have been examining the sprocket area of the film which, until this version of the film was released to the public in 1998, could be viewed only as a series of stills, but never as a motion picture sequence. Now, due to the advance of today's technology, that has changed! In this article, I will be examining the images between the sprocket area as well as the images within the rest of film showing the occupants of the President's limousine, the motorcycle police officers flanking the limousine, and the Secret Service agents traveling immediately behind the President's limousine. Thanks to today's technology, we may now have a better understanding of what took place during the shooting by viewing the Zapruder film in its entirety, as well as examining the film in its original format instead of multi- generation copies.


    Almost since the Zapruder film emerged as a public record, suspicion has grown that it’s been tampered with. Among the original claims for tampering was one while the film was in the possession of TIME-LIFE. The putative change was in reversing the frames near 312-313 to dilute or negate the backward head snap. Later, the tampering hypothesis evolved to claiming that frames were removed in the vicinity of 311-314 in order to deliberately conflate two shots: one from the rear (TSBD) and one from the right front – striking the temple.

    Not surprisingly, variant forms of the tampering hypothesis have made their way into the assassination research community – some with more heft and traction than others. One of the more enticing ones is offered by photo-analyst Mark Crouch, who proposes a subdued forging involving:

    “projection frame by frame onto the rear of a glass screen. The corrupted copy is then recorded frame by frame. When they reach the head shot frame they just add a little paint to the glass, shoot the frame, then clean the glass. They then project the next frame, do their little touchups to match perspective, then go on. They only have to do about fifty frames and the alterations are non-descript……it’s called aerial imaging photography”

    This sounds like an awful lot of work to go through to obtain only an imperfect film or forgery, but Crouch maintains it was adequate to the task: in framing Lee Harvey Oswald for the killing..........

    1. Who are you, Joan? Posting stuff from John McAdam's site does not inspire confidence.

      “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?”

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

      “JFK: Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”

  3. Jim Fetzer said:
    Who are you, Joan? Posting stuff from John McAdam's site does not inspire confidence.

    I'm sorry, Jim, if I upset you. I just googled "Was Zapruder film tampered with?" and got these references. I thought what I posted supported your thesis andhoping to inspire some conversation here on this topic.

    Frankly, it's really not clear to me why so much is riding on these details. It's like gilding the lily.
    I have to go with Jim Di Eugenio's observations in another thread about the Altgens photo and pursuing more proof when there is plenty already. Better to spend time on other things. Anyway, this might be an opportunity to clarify just what the new findings are with this "faked film." Thanks for the links to your articles. I wonder why Google didn't show them in my search.

  4. Joan,

    The provenance of the Zapruder film is crucial to understanding the value of this piece of evidence in the JFK case. It is invariably used by both Warren Report critics and supporters. It used in any discussion of the "ballistics." It is at the heart of nearly every television documentary on the JFK assassination.

    Professor Fetzer and I provided a detailed analysis of the Zapruder film in a previous podcast during which I quoted from Zapruder's testimony in the Warren Report, and Jim offered insights from his Duluth conference and subsequent book, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax."

    The program is archived on this site from January 23, 2012 under the title "JFK and "The Lost Bullet."

  5. To James Norwood:

    Thanks for that information re your podcast January 23,2012. I just listened to the whole tape and most of it was about the media presentations and analysis of their reluctance to tell the truth about the assassination and the TSBD doorway photos. I didn't hear the bottom line on the fakery theory of the Zapruder film.

    Do you really think Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkite and others have been "misled" by the Zapruder film and other evidence into believing the lone gunman scenario? How odd they can't seem to think for themselves. Did you know that the CIA has admitted to having operatives on the editorial staffs of all major newspapers and media outlets? To think that the news is not controlled would be naive.

    The US government has accused Lee Harvey Oswald of the murder of the president. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the government as they are the ones making the allegation. Since there is not a shred of evidence of Oswald's guilt, the government has no case. There is plenty of evidence, though, proving LHO's innocence and that he was set up to be the patsy.

    It is my opinion that too much time is being wasted on studying details and for what? I suspect. there are some vested interests here like book deals or grants, etc. I'm sorry to say that universities have not been leaders in truth seeking which is very sad. Dr. Fetzer is a latecomer to the JFK research scene so what seems new to him is old news to some of us.

    Having studied the JFK case since 1963, I found the most accurate information came from Mark Lane and Jim Garrison. They made talk show TV appearances and Lane's book, "Rush to Judgement" was the best of the many books published. There was more media openness in the 60s and 70s. Mort Sahl brought the case to the public. I saw him in person and on TV. there was much discussion in the early days. "Executive Action," the movie written by Mark Lane, is as good as Stone's JFK.

    It wasn't until the late 80s that Lane proved the CIA was involved in the assassination in a case brought by E. Howard Hunt against Victor Marchetti and "The Spotlight" newspaper for defamation.. Lane deposed most of the former heads of the CIA. You can read about it in "Plausible Denial." Hunt lost the case in which he had sworn he was at home with his wife and son when JFK was killed only to be proven wrong when his own son asked him where he was when Kennedy was killed.

    In the meantime, I've followed all the other assassinations, Watergate, the House investigations, Iran/Contra, the Gulf War, invasion of Panama,Grenada, the bombing of Yugoslavia, the OJ trial, and on and on until the mother of them all, 9/11. And it didn't take me years to know that planes cannot destroy buildings. It took minutes. I should be asking you why it took you all so long to catch on to what is happening. Why do you form these communities of researchers and fight with eachother over planes or no planes, thermite or not, etc?

  6. PS. You mentioned the many documentaries made on JFK such as "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" by Nigel Turner. It was one of the few accurate ones and of course has not been seen very often. Since the 80s, I've recorded many programs on my VCR. I've got hundreds of tapes. Frontline used to do very daring shows but not any more. Bill Moyers used to do good programs such as "The Secret Government about the adventures of the CIA.
    "Panama Deception" comes to mind. You can see these two on YouTube. I saw the mock trial of Oswald between Gerry Spence and Vincent Bugliosi. I agree Spence did not do a very good job. I wonder if you can get that on the Internet? You mentioned all those people we love to hate such as Robert Blakey, Gerald Posner, Priscilla Johnson, and so many others who gave us grief like Arlen Specter. Never knew how he could keep a straight face after his performance on the Warren Commission and the single bullet theory! There was so much to watch on TV back then, also don't forget cable access TV. They had some very good programs with local investigative reporters who appeared regularly.

  7. what is jim garrison himself was a role player in the jfk psy-op? you know he played the role of chief justice earl warren in the oliver stone's jfk?

    look at the screenshot at the top of this page. it is from the movie jfk, and stone claims to have made no additions to it, just 'cleaned it up a little'!

    this says it all really! (but click on for more!).

    it's been 50 years already joan. don't allow the deception to continue a minute longer.

    jim can't help you here. he is too invested (or limited)!

  8. Hey Joan, I've followed the JFK case for just as long as you have, and I've seen and read the same films and books you just cited -- back when they first came out, so listen up:

    Perhaps Dr. Fetzer IS (but only relatively speaking) a "latecomer" to the investigation, but in the multiple decades since he DID come on board Jim has done absolutely prodigious, fantastic work in furthering that investigation and discovering new angles and info.

    Maybe he has, of late, been a tad too open to the "LBJ as Mastermind" simplistic scenario, and perhaps Professor Mellen does have some justification to suspect at least a few elements of fictionalisation in the (nevertheless valuable) Judy Baker and Maddie Brown memoirs, but Dr. Fetzer and his associates' meticulously scientific reconstruction of the crime, their persuasive identifying of each of the likely gunmen, and the Fetzer Team's brilliant DE-construction of the Zapruder forgery (which not only muddied the trajectory waters for far too long, but also hid the halting of the limo) merit a very high rank indeed -- in the pantheon of assassination truth-tellers.

    (I wish I could be as complimentary regarding his current position on 9/11 victim-and-image fakery, but maybe there are yet more "technologies of trickery" to be uncovered that will surprise us both.)