FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM 153 is approaching the limousine. Due to its brief sequence on Elm Street, it offers no corroboration or contradiction of the Zapruder film. The few frames shown (three) in the Warren Commission Re- port are not enought to reach a conclusion. THE FILM FORGERY PROCESS At this point I had proven to my satisfaction that frames had been removed from the Zapruder film and that the opportunity was pres- ent for the film to have been altered while in the possession of the FBI. From the beginning, as a matter of diligence, I had felt that I should investigate the process and mechanisms by which the for- gery could have been accomplished. I was fortunate to obtain con- siderable help from several experts. A key point in film editing is that it is very unlikely that the 8mm film would have been altered without first enlarging it to at least a 16mm format or, preferably, 35mm. This was pointed out to me by George Kendall, retired chief engineer of Moviola Corpora -tion, the leading manufacturer of film editing machines in 1963. Their standard machines were for 16mm and 35mm film. Another key point is that the 8mm film used by Zapruder was Kodachrome 11. 1 obtained this information from James Silverberg, attorney for the Zapruder family estate. His law firm has been responsible for all legal and contract matters concerning the film. Silverberg told me he had established that the film was Kodachrome 11 by inspection of the markings on the "original" (now in preservation in the National Archives) and after consulting with Eastman Kodak engineers. Also, close examination of the Zapruder frames shown in the Warren Commission Report in Volume XVIII show Kodachrome 11 identification markings. A third key point is that 16mm film or 35mm was not (and is not) available in Kodachrome II. I obtained this information from Dr. Rod Ryan, retired scientist from Eastman Kodak Company Therefore the enlarged film for editing would not have been on Kodachrome 11. With these three basic parameters, it was obvious that the forgery process would have involved these minimal steps: (1) enlarge the 8mm camera original to 16mm or 35mm; (2) edit the enlarged film on an editing machine, producing a work print which would show splice marks; (3) reduce back to 8mm on Kodachrome 11 camera stock, circa 1963, so that no splice marks were detectable. In consultation with Leon Carrere (motion picture film editor), Peter Silverman (retired chief engineer of Consolidated Film 154 BLOODY TREASON Laboratories in Los Angeles), and others, I determined that all three steps could have been accomplished with an optical printer in conjunction with a Moviola machine. I now wondered if the original film in the National Archives was, in fact, circa 1963- film stock manufactured at a time compatible with November 22, 1963. 1 obtained film edge markings from James Silverberg; Dr. Ryan told me they would reveal the date of manufacture of the 8mm film by Eastman Kodak. The edge markings were a series of Greek letters, periods, slashes, and alphabetical letters. I informed Dr. Ryan of the markings and, after he consulted his files, he told me the film came from a large production roll manufactured by Eastman Kodak in 1961. He also told me that this date would have been compatible with Abraham Zapruder shooting his film on November 22,1963. In the course of our conversations, Dr. Ryan told me that, as far as he could remember, there were only three independent film laboratories in the United States in 1963 that could have processed Kodachrome 11 film. He explained that the process was very complicated, involving many steps and requiring special equipment. He also said that there was not an independent laboratory in the Dallas area that had that capability, and that neither the FBI nor the CIA had the capability to process Kodachrome 11 film. This seemed to be potentially important information because, if I ruled out Eastman Kodak having been involved in the final step of the forgery-wittingly or unwittingly-then it could have been accomplished in only three private laboratories in the United States. Dr. Ryan remembered that there was one such laboratory in Los Angeles, another in Chicago, and the third in New York City. He said he would check his records and let me know for certain if these were the only laboratories and their exact locations. A MEETING WITH DR. RODERICK RYAN I became acquainted with Dr. Ryan by way of introduction by Peter Silverman, who had been introduced to me by George Kendall, who had been introduced to me by my friend, Robert Casey. This chain of introductions is typical of the way a network of sources and expertise is somewhat readily developed by those who are interested in investigating a complex subject that has a wide base of information and interest. In the JFK assassination, in particular, there was a keen interest and willing helpfulness from almost everybody I contacted. People wanted to know and understand what happened in FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM 155 this dreadful, horrible murder of the president of the United States. The mystery continues, after thirty-three years, to puzzle and challenge our sensibilities. When I became focused on the Zapruder film and saw the high probability that it had been altered, I felt it would be very important for me to find a consultant or individual who was nationally recognized as a technical expert in motion picture films. Dr. Ryan proved to be someone who filled that need. (Another invaluable technical expert, Leon Carrere, has previously been discussed.) My conversations with Dr. Ryan started on the telephone in early 1994. It was not until February 14, 1995 that I drove up to Los Angeles to meet with him personally.* What I sought from Dr. Ryan was a short education on the processes and equipment that would have been required for the alteration of the Zapruder film in 1963. 1 was interested in the state of technology at that time as well as the availability of the necessary equipment, how special or unique it was, and what entities or organizations would have had such equipment at the time. I also thought that perhaps Dr. Ryan would be willing to state some of his opinions on whether or not the Zapruder film had been altered, although earlier I had decided that I would primarily be seeking technical expertise on processes and equipment. But, of course, if he were willing to give some opinions on the authenticity of the film itself, it would be most welcome. Dr. Ryan outlined the process for editing 8mm Kodachrome Il film that would have been required in this case; it involves making an enlargement to 16mm (or 35mm), editing, and then reducing back to 8mm on Kodachrome 11 stock. From the information he gave --------------------------------------------------- *Dr. Ryan has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He was with Eastman Kodak Company in Hollywood, California, from 1947 to 1986 where he held various engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services-motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He has received numerous awards, honors, and commendations, including the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (1982). He also received a Medal of Commendation for Technical Contributions by the Industry Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (1990). He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. Dr. Ryan's credentials include authorship of numerous books on motion picture film technology, technical papers and articles in motion picture science, as well as being a member of the British Kinematograph Sound and Television Society He is currently retired from Eastman Kodak and is active as a consultant in his field. His advice to me was provided without charge. 156 BLOODY TREASON me. I constructed a process flow diagram which is shown in Exhibit 12-5. Dr. Ryan later reviewed and approved the diagram in its final form. The equipment required for the above procedure is: a. Optical printer for enlarging 8mm to 16mm or 35mm, or reducing 16mm or 35mm to 8mm. b. A 35mm or 16mm film viewing machine for editing purposes. (This would probably have been a Moviola machine, but other 16mm makes were available in 1963.) c. A contact printer for 16mm or 35mm film. (These were commonly available in 1963.) d. Kodachrome 11 process for final print (available only at East man Kodak laboratories throughout the U.S. and at a small number of licensed facilities). Dr. Ryan had checked in his files and found that there were relatively few commercial laboratories available in 1963 that could have done the 8mm/16mm optical printing. One company was George W Colburn Laboratories in Chicago, Illinois. Also there were Calvin Laboratories in Kansas City and Hollywood Valley Film Laboratories in Los Angeles, both of which were no longer in business. Dr. Ryan thought that Colburn Laboratories was still in business in Chicago, being run by George Colburn's brother, Robert Colburn. He also told me that the Technicolor Company in Burbank, California, at one time had the capability to process Kodachrome 11 film. The reason for the limited availability of Kodachrome process technology in 1963 is that until the mid-1950s the technology was not made available from Eastman Kodak for commercial laboratory licensing other than at their own laboratories. Dr. Ryan repeated that only a few companies had purchased the technology from Eastman Kodak at that time. He said equipment could have been purchased piecemeal to assemble the process, but he could see no reason why anyone would want to do that. Dr. Ryan pointed out that the Kodachrome 11 process is relatively complicated compared to the process for Ektachrome film. The Kodachrome 11 process takes nine different steps requiring special equipment, as opposed to only five steps for the Ektachrome process. [PAGE 157 IS "EX-12-5.JPG" FULL-PAGE GRAPHIC] 158 BLOODY TREASON I was surprised to learn from Dr. Ryan that no government facilities had Kodachrome 11 processing in 1963 or even today Dr. Ryan was certain on this point. I had always assumed that the National Photographic Interpretation Center, the laboratories in the FBI, or other government agencies would have such equipment. But Dr. Ryan said that this was not so. Only Eastman Kodak and a few licensed private laboratories could have done the final step of development back to Kodachrome 11 film stock. At first, both Dr. Ryan and I thought this would narrow down considerably the entities that could have altered the film. But on further discussion I suggested that, inasmuch as only the last step in the process involved the need for Kodachrome 11 processing capability, perhaps whoever did the forgery ended up with Kodachrome 11 exposed film with no visible splices (as shown in Exhibit 12-5), and then simply sent the film to either an Eastman Kodak laboratory or a commercial laboratory that had the Kodachrome 11 process and had it developed. I asked Dr. Ryan if he felt that Eastman Kodak or a commercial laboratory would have taken particular note of the film. He said no, that at one time there were government regulations on pornography which required photographic processors to inspect the film they were developing, but by 1963 those had long since been abandoned. He said any lab would probably take a roll of 8mm film and simply develop it without even looking at it and give it back to the owner. He also said that laboratories had contracts for secret and confidential work with the government and would normally process whatever package of materials was sent to them without looking at it. In sum, this left the field almost wide open for altering and processing the Zapruder film. The only narrow slot in the field would be the laboratories mentioned earlier for enlarging 8mm film to either 16mm or 35mm. I wondered if there would be any point in contacting these companies to see if they had received orders in 1963 or 1964 for processing or enlarging the Zapruder film, or returning enlarged film back to 8mm. After discussing it with Dr. Ryan, we both concluded there would be no such records available. It was too long ago and it would probably be a fruitless effort of investigation. Also, there was no reason to believe that some government film laboratories did not have the capability to enlarge 8mm film on optical printers. I asked Dr. Ryan about the capability in 1963 for special-effects film editing such as that now available with modern computer technology He said that, as far as he knew, digital computer capability FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM 159 to create special effects similar to what is now being done was not commercially available in 1963. It was not until 1973 that this type of computer equipment was developed, using rudimentary digital equipment. It was under development at Hughes Aircraft Company in Culver City, California, in 1973. Dr. Ryan noted, however, that even in 1973 it would have taken a complete room full of digital equipment to do what is now being done on a desktop computer in special-effects editing. I showed Dr. Ryan the critical frames of the Zapruder film that I had been studying. I showed him frames 302 and 303 and pointed out the blur in the stationary background figures as opposed to the sharp focus of the limousine in 302, and how the blur of the background figures suddenly disappeared in 303 while the limousine remained in sharp focus. I asked Dr. Ryan what he thought could cause this. He stated, to my satisfaction, that "the limousine is moving in 302 and standing still in 303." 1 considered this statement from Dr. Ryan to be extremely important corroboration of my analysis. In a later telephone conversation with Dr. Ryan, I asked him again about this, if he had more thoughts on the subject. He told me that he had shown 302 and 303 to his son, who is also in motion picture film technology, and they both agreed that the limousine was moving in 302 and standing still in 303-the reason being that Zapruder was panning his camera to keep up with the moving limousine in 302, resulting in the blur of background figures, which came into sharp focus in 303 when the limousine was stopped and Zapruder was no longer panning, thus eliminating the blur in the background figures. I asked Dr. Ryan if there was any other reason that could explain the blur of the background figures in 302. He said he had thought of this but could not think of a logical reason as to why these figures would be blurred other than that the limousine was moving and Zapruder was panning his camera to keep up with the limousine, thus blurring the background figures. I asked him if it would be possible in special effects to create this blur of the background figures. He said yes, but he had thought about that and could think of no logical reason why anyone would want to do it. (Even if they had, this would still be alteration of the film.) I began to see that the blur of the background figures in 302 and the absence of blur in 303 amounted to very significant evidence of forgery of the Zapruder film, and strongly reinforces the initial discovery of the rapid head turn between 316 and 317 and 160 BLOODY TREASON 302 and 303. The two phenomena occurring in precisely the same frame was very clear and convincing evidence, indeed! I then asked Dr. Ryan to inspect the mysterious blobs on JFK's face and in the successive frames after the fatal head shot. I asked if this could be explained in any way other than alteration of film. He spent some time looking at the series of frames, thinking that he might be able to find possibilities of light reflection from adjacent objects or surfaces that could cause the appearance of the blobs. He found none. He looked at Jacqueline Kennedy's head or hands as a possibility of light reflection as well as parts of the limousine. He found none. I asked if this could have been done with traveling matte inserts. He said it didn't look like traveling matte inserts to him. He did note, however, that traveling matte insert techniques were in use in the film industry as early as the 1930s, although it was done with manual techniques as opposed to the current digital computer techniques. I then asked Dr. Ryan what these blobs were if they were not traveling matte inserts. He said it looked as if the blobs had been painted in. This came as a surprise to me because I had just about concluded that it had been done with traveling matte inserts based on my previous research. I noted to Dr. Ryan that some researchers had argued that these blobs could not have been painted in because they appear as three-dimensional when viewed through a stereoscopic viewer. He said that painted special effects can be made to appear three-dimensional when viewed stereoscopically (Some researchers who have viewed the blobs with a stereoscope have noted that they have a three-dimensional effect. Also, just looking at the blobs, one can see that they are three-dimensional.) [In the spring of 1996, Dr. David Mantik and I met concerning a new project he had undertaken on the Zapruder film. He told me that his work (see Chapter 14) was now essentially done on the Kennedy xrays and that he was pursuing what he thought would be additional scientific proof, beyond my work, of alteration of the Zapruder film. Mantik's work involved photographic information between the sprocket holes, as was published in Life magazine. His question to me was whether an optical printer would capture that information. I promised him I would check into that while he was away for the summer on a medical exchange program to New Zealand. I called Dr. Ryan and he was certain that optical printers for the 8mm film were available to capture all the information on the film, FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM 161 but suggested that I call George Coburn in Chicago who would be able to provide a completely authoritative answer. I called Mr. Coburn and he told me that his optical printers in those days could certainly capture all of the information on 8mm film, between the sprocket holes and even beyond the edges of the film if one wanted. I asked Mr. Coburn if his company enlarged the Zapruder film for Life magazine in the days following the assassination. He replied that he did remember that his firm enlarged an 8mm film for Life concerning the JFK assassination, but couldn't recall if it was the Zapruder film. I asked him if there would be any records available that would show work they did for Life. He said no; his company was no longer in existence, had gone out with the end of the era of 8mm film, and all such detailed records had been disposed of.] By February 1994, 1 had reached the point in my investigation of the Zapruder film that I felt I could go on to a broader investigation of the assassination conspiracy. But when I returned to San Diego, I received a telephone call from Charles Marler who suggested that we meet with Dr. David Mantik and Jim DeEugenio, author of the book Destiny Betrayed on the Kennedy assassination, to look over our research on the Zapruder film. I agreed, and we decided to meet at Dr. Mantik's summer home in Idyllwild, in Southern California's San Jacinto Mountains. THE MEETING AT IDYLLWILD On Saturday, February 24, 1995, we all met at Dr. Mantik's home. DeEugenio brought along with him three researchers, all of whom had helped him in his work. We spent the day looking at the Zapruder slides, high-resolution blow-ups, graphs, and other items of my research material, and had a lively general discussion of the JFK assassination evidence. This meeting had been precipitated by a challenge that had been laid down by two other researchers in the eastern United States and an author who had questioned the authenticity of the rapid head-turn experiments that Marler and I had made. These two researchers had gone to the National Archives and looked at slides available there from the Zapruder film, and had made their own observations, which did not agree with my and Marler's estimates of the position of Greer's head angles at frames 302, 303 and 316, 317. Marler felt that he, Dr. Mantik, and I should get together among ourselves and make a final determination of the accuracy of our own observations. 162 BLOODY TREASON Dr. Mantik had obtained copies of the same slides from the National Archives that my challengers were examining, and he showed them to me. I noted that frame 317 was misnumbered. (Earlier I had noted this in the Zapruder family attorney's office in Washington, D.C.; frame 317 was misnumbered in their collection which they said they had obtained from the National Archives.) I determined that what is numbered as frame 317 in the National Archives is actually frame 308. Marler and I had carefully confirmed that the slides we were looking at were accurately numbered. We had confirmed that the slides agreed with what was shown in the Warren Commission Report. As noted previously, I also confirmed that the slides upon which our analysis was based were in proper sequence, comparing them to a copy of the original film strip provided to me by Zapruder's attorney The fact that our challengers were looking at the wrong slide in frame 317 was relayed to them a few days later with the hope that this would explain their confusion.* In any event, we spent the day at Idyllwild brainstorming various aspects of the Kennedy assassination, looking at the slides and checking my work. We spiritedly disagreed on several aspects of the assassination evidence as to the plotters, but unanimously agreed that the angles and speeds that Marler and I had calculated for William Greer's head turn were correct. As a point of irony, three weeks after the meeting in Idyllwild I received a letter from Marler relaying to me that Dr. Mantik had --------------------------------------------------------- *The "challengers" I can now report were author Harrison Livingstone and two researchers working with him, Martin Shackelford and Daryll Weatherly. Harrison Livingstone published his new book, Killing Kennedy: And the Hoax of the Century, in the spring of 1995. 1 was not happy with what he had written. Marler and I had both hoped that when we advised him that he and his group were looking at the wrong frames he would back off and leave the rapid head/body turn subject alone until I could publish. But he did not do so. He wrote about degrees of head turn in frames 302-303 and 316-317 with which Marler, Dr. Mantik, and I did not agree. Livingstone acknowledged that we may have been looking at different frames than he. Unfortunately, he did not include photos of the actual frames that he was looking at for his reader to study Also, Livingstone apparently was not aware (I never talked with him) that my study was based on the maximum achievable rate of angular velocity, not on a missing frame count exhibited by Greer's head and body in 302, 303 and 316, 317 compared to our tests with athletes. This is unfortunate because both David Lifton and Marler had presented my work based on missing frame counts. Later I decided that the angular velocity was the only way to analyze it because frame counts are very deceivinghead and body turns start with miniscule frame counts and build up in degrees as the turn accelerates. I now regret that I agreed to let David Lifton present what we call the "rapid head turn" before I had finished my work and was ready to publish. This led to Marler's articles and now, finally, my book, which was published only after extensive study and consultation with experts. I wish that Livingstone had held off until I could finish my work and continued on next page [This portion of the footnote actually appears on p. 163] continued from previous page publish, but he was unwilling to do so. Perhaps after he reads this book he will agree with my work. I also want to correct Harrison Livingstone in his statement on page 172 of his book Killing Kennedy that seems to imply that Dr. Mantik endorses his analysis. I talked with Dr. Mantik about this after I had seen that Livingstone had made that statement, and Dr. Mantik told me that he, indeed, agreed with the estimates of angles I am reporting here. END OF FOOTNOTE FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM 163 sent him a copy of a page from Harold Weisberg's book Photographic Whitewash, in which Weisberg had noted that in 1966 he had discovered that frame 317 in the National Archive collection was misnumbered and was actually a frame taken about twenty frames earlier. This error, despite having been identified to the National Archives by Weisburg, remained in place in 1995, twenty- nine years later, and was still creating confusion among researchers. I wondered why frame 317 was misnumbered in the collection available to the public in the National Archives. It demonstrated to me a possible reason why no one had discovered the rapid head turn between 316 and 317 over all these years. To my knowledge, these frames had never appeared in Life or any national publication. Thus when researchers went to the National Archives they would only end up confused. This would be true even for experienced researchers. I noted that it was indeed a peculiar coincidence that this critical frame would be misnumbered. It was when looking at frame 317 that I first noticed the extreme head turn from frame 316. (In the Warren Commission Report, the poor-quality black-and-white copies of the Zapruder film do not clearly show this head turn, although, on close scrutiny, one can see it, but only if looking for it.) I pondered if it were not more likely that frame 317 had been deliberately misnumbered by someone along the way because that person knew that it would be the one that would jump out most obviously to future researchers who would be looking, as I did, at the position of Greer's head during and after the fatal head shot. (When I found the rapid head turn at 317, 1 was not looking for it. I was examining the film to see if Greer's testimony-that he was not looking at Kennedy when he was shot-was true.) Only by accident did I make the discovery of the rapid head turn at 317. 1 also noted that Harold Weisberg had not noticed the rapid head turn at 317. 1 suspected that Weisberg did not notice it because he probably did not have 317 available to examine. All he had available to him was the poor reproduction of 317 in the Warren Commission Report. BLOODY TREASON I wondered if the frames that would most starkly reveal the forgery of the Zapruder film had systematically been kept from the American public over the years. None of them had been published in Life. Only poor-quality prints were published in the Warren Commission Report. And only dedicated researchers who would go to Washington, D.C., and dig the frames out of the National Archives would be in a position to make the discovery. Unfortunately, even those dedicated researchers would not find frame 317. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS IN CHAPTERS 11 AND 12 There are frames missing in the Zapruder film between 302 and 303 and 316 and 317. This is evidenced by the impossibly rapid head turn of the limousine driver, William Greer. Extensive tests conducted on two human subjects show that neither was able even to come close to duplicating the feat of William Greer in these frames. The test subjects included a top amateur athlete and a professional athlete. Even when cued for the turn in advance, the most rapid head turn of the athletes measured in our tests was only 50 percent as rapid as Greer's feat. In most of our tests, it was less that 33 percent as rapid. In addition to Greer's impossibly rapid head turns, there is little or no blurring of Greer's head during these turns. Had his head turned as rapidly as indicated by the altered film, it should appear as a blob in the motion picture. This was proven by mathematics and substantiated on test films. 4. There is further evidence of removal of frames between 302 and 303. Stationary figures in the background in 302 are severely blurred but are not blurred in 303-only one frame later-while in both frames 302 and 303 the limousine is in sharp focus. The explanation is that Zapruder was panning his camera in 302 to keep up with the limousine speed, thus resulting in blur in the stationary background figures. When the blur disappears in the background figures between 302 and 303, it is stark evidence that the limousine is standing still in 303. This analysis was confirmed by renowned film expert Dr. Roderick Ryan. Yet the film shows the limousine moving forward at a uniform speed of 11 miles per hour. FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM 165 5. Direct eyewitness testimony, under oath, of at least five witnesses confirms that the limousine had come almost to a stop during the fatal head shot sequence. And, as just explained, stopping of the limousine is confirmed between frames 302 and 303, indicating that a block of frames must have been removed between these two frames. Experience tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from 11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second; also, simply viewing the motion picture film, in motion, shows the limousine moving uniformly through the scene, as do measured calculations of forward motion of the limousine on a frame-by-frame basis. 6. Why were blocks of frames removed? The answer is provided by eyewitness testimonies and other photographs, as follows: The Zapruder film was altered to eliminate evidence of a fatal head shot, fired from the front-an eruption of material from the back of Kennedy's head that should have appeared in the film. Numerous eyewitnesses testify that at the time of the fatal head shot there was an eruption of material backwards from Kennedy's head. Also, motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis testified that he was riding to the rear and left of the presidential limousine and, when Kennedy's head was hit, it exploded and he was splattered with blood and brain. This is evidence of a shot from the front. But the Zapruder film does not show the eruption of blood from the rear of Kennedy's head. It shows only an eruption of blood from the front of the head. Only by removal of frames by the plotters would the eruption from the rear of the head be absent from the film. We not only have evidence of the forgery of the film by technical analysis, we also have eyewitness testimonies of what should have appeared on the film that did not appear, namely eruption of material from the back of Kennedy's head. 8. An analysis of the chain of possession of the film shows that in all probability it was in the FBI's possession when it was altered, while at the same time the Nix film was altered. There is a slight possibility that the Zapruder film could have been altered overnight in Dallas by other conspirators, but even in that unlikely event the altered film would have had to have been substituted for the copy that was sent by special plane and arrived in FBI headquarters early on Saturday morning. Therefore the FBI would have had knowledge of the altered 166 BLOODY TREASON film. There is no scenario that does not implicate the FBI in the film alteration. 9. The evidence in this and the preceding two chapters conclusively shows that the Zapruder film is a forgery and that any conclusions reached from analysis of the film regarding timing of shots and backward motion of Kennedy at the point of the fatal shot must be viewed with deep skepticism. At the very least, any time segments calculated using the Zapruder film should be considered to be minimal times. Thus, it would have been possible for a single gunman from the School Book Depository to have fired three fatal shots within the time sequence of the shots of the assassination. This does not preclude, however, a second gunman from the front. In fact, alteration of the Zapruder film demonstrates the extreme need of the conspirators to conceal the fact of a shot from the front. The question remains as to the ultimate motive for the alteration of the Zapruder film. Was it done by conspirators to conceal their involvement in the Kennedy assassination? Or was it directed by government officials to bury the fact that a conspiracy had taken place to assassinate John Kennedy by forces unknown (or forces known, and not to be disclosed to the American people)? We will now go to the amazing evidence of deception in the autopsy of the president's body at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington, D.C., at the very heart of government. Epilogue At a JFK conference in Dallas in November 1996, 1 found that in 1992, Roy L. Schaffer of Dayton, Ohio, had discovered the rapid head turn between frames 316 and 317. Moreover, he had estimated the angle of turn of Greer's head to be 110 degrees between these two frames. This compares to the 115-degree angle that Marler, Mantik, and I had independently estimated! Schaffer never published his finding, but had copyrighted an article about it. Schaffer did not conduct tests as to how rapidly athletes or others could turn their heads. It was very intellectually satisfying to me that this totally independent discovery with confirming measurements had been made.