This is part two in the series of articles that I have agreed to write for Greg Jaynes. Although I certainly disagree with Greg's opinion that Lee Oswald was guilty, I agree with him that it is time to speak out about many things that I have been concerned about for some time.

Last November in Dallas, at a symposium sponsored by JFK/Lancer, the rumor that the original Zapruder film was and is a fake received a great deal of attention. The story (which is on par with the Truman Capote created fairy-tale that President Kennedy had survived Dallas and was living on one of Aristotle Onasis' islands) was started by disinformation mongers in the Kennedy case in an attempt to discredit what is probably the single most important piece of evidence that we have.

There is absolutely no basis in fact to back up this theory, and as long as the story was only being spread by the same "researchers" that were claiming that the "Z" film is a cartoon, that it doesn't matter what it shows, and that the president's head wounds were tampered with on his (stolen) body before the autopsy, the story was little more than an obvious attempt by the propaganda machine of the cover-up to confuse new and uninformed critics of the Warren Report and give the establishment press an excuse to ridicule the genuine critics and paint us all with the same brush as the nuts. These rumors were created as disinformation in the first place.

What was so frightening about the Dallas Lancer conference was that the disinformation peddlers had convinced some legitimate researchers that there was any merit to the farce. People who I had respected in their own fields, where they know what they are doing, were now attempting to present themselves as photo-analysts and following the suggestions and theories of frauds and pretenders who couldn't tell an f-stop from a bus stop if their lives depended on it.

At the COPA symposium at Georgetown University in Washington this past June, Dr. David Mantik gave a presentation outlining the issues presented by the faction that claims that the Zapruder film is a fake. Ninety-five percent of the issues presented can easily be explained right off the bat. The other five percent would require expensive demonstrations (which were not shown) to illustrate the issues in question to see if his interpretations of the issues have any merit. As yet no such presentation has taken place.

Most of the problems seem to come from these "researchers" not understanding things such as the difference between focus and blur, ghost images, and linear edge stretch. The mis-interpretation of film damage, emulsion flaws, and defects as artifact beyond reality also contribute to this problem. Faulty analysis and mis-interpretation based on assumption of how motion picture film works has led so-called researchers to rush to judgement and create the fiction about the film being forged. One might ask, "To what end?" The fact that the Zapruder film has hurt those attempting to further the cover-up of the conspiracy more than any other piece of evidence and the lack of logic that for the film to be altered in the manner suggested, would work against the cover-up where leaving it alone would hurt the seekers of the truth doesn't bother the rumor mongers. If the film were faked, how come the forgers didn't make the President's head go forward (to back the lone assassin theory) instead of to the rear (which destroys the theory)? Why would they leave shot timing gaps both too short and too long to fit any of the official theories? The clarity and resolution as well as the tonal range and the film emulsion and wind as well as copies made the same day also prove that the original film is genuine.

But these are the same "assassination researchers" that want us to believe that the grassy knoll was created by the CIA out of paper mache so that the assassins would have cover (even though the plaza has been there since 1938, a quarter century prior to the assassination), that the entire Republican party and/or the Secret Service assassinated President Kennedy, that Governor Connally was actually shot from the front, and under threat of death, allowed himself to be surgically altered to make it appear that he was shot from behind. This allegedly took place before he regained consciousness while still in Parkland Hospital on the afternoon of the assassination. This should give us a clue to the degree of validity of the "Z" film claim. For years these characters have altered the evidence to fit their illogical and far out theories. This is no exception.

Some, such as Dr. Mantik are sincere and believe what is being shown to them, but there are those who are using people such as him to promote their theories. On the final day at the Georgetown symposium {a certain author} started ranting and raving that Dr. Mantik's presentation was his work. This, Dr. Mantik denied, but {the author} continued to insist that the "work" was his. If this was true, it explains everything. For the vast majority of the items presented by Dr. Mantik, simple and provable explanations answer the questions raised. I have not had the time nor the energy to deal with the other five percent or so.

Fortunately, very few people really believe that the film is a fake, but the resulting confusion and doubt create the danger of further disinformation. One researcher has tried to "prove" that the Secret Service killed President Kennedy and has bootlegged a copy of the Zapruder film, increased the contrast and reduced the chroma (color saturation) and gray scale to make it appear as if the reflection of sunlight from the forehead and hair on Roy Kellerman's head was, "a nickel plated automatic pistol" fired by the limo driver, Bill Greer, . Since the original Zapruder film proves that he is either wrong, lying, or crazy, he attacks the authenticity of the film. Another, more well known but just as demented "researcher" has tried to convince his readership that the limousine stopped in the middle of Elm Street (which it didn't), and since the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, and Bronson films all prove that it didn't stop, he claims that all of the films of the assassination are faked. This also creates another problem for those who are trying to destroy the Zapruder film as evidence. If the "Z" film is faked, then the other three films which confirm the authenticity of "Z" would all have to be faked as well. The others, clearly have not been faked either.

It also needs to be mentioned that not one of the originators of this ludicrous rumor have ever seen, held or inspected the "camera original" of the Zapruder film. I have. There is not one genuine earmark of forgery anywhere in the film. Both Dr. Mantik and myself have agreed to try to get together and try to resolve the remaining 5% of the "discoveries". However, because of the vast expense involved, and the fact that we live 1,700 miles apart, that has not yet occurred. I hope we will be able to do this before this fall.

In 1991, while we were working on Oliver Stone's JFK, Larry Howard filmed the motorcade from Abraham Zapruder's perch using the same type of Bell and Howell 8mm movie camera. The artifacts cited by those promoting the story of the film being false are all present in the film shot by Larry. Measurements, blur, focus, distance, the works. The measurements and blur of the Stemmons Freeway road sign which was placed back in its original spot by Oliver Stone are identical on the Howard and Zapruder films. The Howard film bears out the authenticity of the Zapruder film, as does everything else.

Once again I will state that I have no problem with the sincerity of Dr. Mantik. I believe and know that his conclusion here is wrong. But there are others who are using him and then hiding while they accomplish their foul work. These frauds know that the film is real and must be laughing their heads off at the amount of work and time that we are wasting on this hogwash.

Is the Zapruder film a fake? No! Just because someone believes a fairy tale doesn't make it true. I clearly can't spare the weeks that it would take to deal with every one of the issues that are being raised by this fairy tale. Nor is it worth the expense to disprove a story that which is already proven as fiction. Disinformation such as the fake-Z-film story can only hurt the search for the truth.

May all the truth be known...soon!

- Robert Groden