The CIA and the Media: Historical Fact #89

The famous film of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination captured by amateur filmographer Abraham Zapruder was likely altered from its original with advanced technology in a CIA-owned laboratory within hours of the event. These are the observations of veteran JFK assassination researcher David S. Lifton.

“In 1971, I was permitted to study, in the L.A. offices of Time-Life, a 35mm print made from what Time-Life called the ‘camera original’ of the Zapruder film,” Lifton begins.

To my surprise, I found that those frames showed the large head wound situated toward the right front, not the rear of the head as reported by Dallas observers. The rear of the head gave the appearance of having been “blacked out”–or of having been in a deep shadow.

I also discovered splices on the film which had never been mentioned by Time-Life. I then began exploring the possibility that the Zapruder film itself had been altered sometime before it became Warren Commission evidence in 1964, perhaps even before it went to Life on November 23, 1963. (Life purchased the film on November 25, 1963 for $150,000.) But alteration of the film required a film laboratory with the sophisticated apparatus normally used by Hollywood to create “special effects.” Was the original Zapruder film at some point taken to such a laboratory? Officially, the film went only from Zapruder and Kodak in Dallas; then to Jamison Film Co. in Dallas, where three prints were made (two for the Secret Service, and one for Zapruder); then back to Zapruder, and then to the vault at Life. I suspected it had taken a secret detour, but I could find no directr evidence to prove that.

Then, in 1976, among records released by the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act, Paul Hoch found CIA item 450, a group of documents indicating the Zapruder film was at the CIA’s National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC), possibly on Friday night, November 22, 1963, and certainly within days of the assassination. NPIC is one of the most sophisticated photo labs in the world.

The CIA documents indicate that the film, when at NPIC, was not yet numbered as it was later by the FBI laboratory. CIA tables and frame numbers arranged in a multiple-column format bearing such headings as “frames on which shots occur” and “seconds between shots” explores various three-shot interpretations of the film. One document refers to the existence of either a negative or master positive–and calls for the striking of four prints from that item: one “test print,” and a second group of three prints. the total job, it indicated, would take seven hours. the making of four prints is significant–that number is exactly what existed in Dallas: an original, and three prints made from that original.

In 1976, I interviewed Herbert Orth, the photo chief at Life. Orth believed the film never left his custody in 1963. Yet the CIA documents establish that it, or a copy, was worked on at the CIA’s film lab in Washington. Indeed, the figures used in the CIA documents to describe the time intervals between shots–“74 frames later” and “48 frames after that”–are identical with those used in the first Life article about the film (Life, 11/29/63, “End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds”). Was the CIA supplying Life with data? Or did the agency have the film later, and was it reading Life for its information?

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 completely unnecessary; (2) an altered film might also explain why the occipital area, where the Dallas doctors saw a wound, appears suspiciously dark, whereaas a large wound appears on the forward right-hand side of the head, where the Dallas doctors saw no wound at all. Dr. Paul Peters, one of the Dallas doctors quoted in this book, when ashown color blowups made from the Zapruder film frames depicting these wounds, wrote, “The wound which you marked … I never saw and I don’t htink there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder’s movie … The only wound I saw on President Kennedy’s head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side.”

David S. Lifton, Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Asssassination of John F. Kennedy, New York: MacMillan, 1980, 555-557f.

0

Leave a Reply

2 thoughts on “The CIA and the Media: Historical Fact #89”

  1. This article by David Lifton focuses us on very old information and avoids looking at the who of the JFK assassination.

    However, it does shed light on the who of the CIA.

    _____________________________
    Thought it would be interesting to search on the term

    James Fetzer and Lifton.

    Found this…

    https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16026-lifton-attacks-fetzer-over-911-and-israeli-complicity/

    Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity

    By Guest James H. Fetzer, June 5, 2010 in JFK Assassination Debate


    Guest James H. Fetzer

    Guest James H. Fetzer
    Guests

    Posted June 5, 2010 (edited)

    JIM FETZER RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT 9/11 AND MORE

    Having just received a copy of this memorandum attacking me for my

    views about 9/11 and indications of Israeli complicity, I would observe

    that David Lifton appears to be far removed from areas in which he is

    competent. ” SNIP

    _____________

    Name: Lifton

    As per mamanames.com records, Lifton is a Jew name of a Male/Boy; and, the name Lifton is of the Hebrew origin.

    Name: Lifton
    Gender: Male/Boy
    Meaning: A person who lives in the town beside the hill
    Origin: Hebrew
    Religion: Jew

    http://mamanames.com/baby-name-meaning/Lifton

  2. THANK YOU!!!

    As I recall, this spliced-film issue is discussed in the 3 hr.+ video found on YT called “It’s All a Rich Man’s Trick,” a.k.a. “Everything Is a Rich Man’s Trick.” But I had never heard it anywhere else, and of course the film doesn’t have footnotes.

    Once again, Dr. Tracy, you’re doing the pseudo-journalists’ work for them–while they collect their inflated salaries for doing nothing but bashing Trump…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *