Of Alteration In The Zapruder Film
follows are some of the indications that the Zapruder film has
been altered. By "altered" I mean that certain frames
have been removed and that others are composites. Why was the
film altered? To remove episodes and images that clearly showed
there were more than three shots (at least one from the front)
and therefore that there were multiple gunmen involved in the
shooting. I have gathered most of these points from the historic
new book Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out On The Death
Of JFK, about which more will be said further on in this article.
Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen
to the rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or
slowed down drastically for a second or two. The Muchmore film
shows the limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about
half a second) during the time period corresponding to about
frames 311-319 of the Zapruder film. This event is not seen
in the Zapruder film; in fact, the limousine never comes close
to performing this action in the current film.
of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief
slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing
occurs from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately
12 to 8 mph in half a second. However, in the film this event
is so subtle that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one
appears to have noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez, through
careful study and analysis of the film, detected it. It seems
highly unlikely that this subtle, half-second slowing is what
the witnesses were describing when they said the limousine came
to a full stop or slowed down drastically.
However, the sudden slowing of the limousine from 12 to 8 mph
in Z295-304 does present another problem for the film's authenticity.
Though the slowdown is not very noticeable in the film, it represents
a deceleration of about 0.37 g. Physicist Art Snyder notes that
such a rapid slowing would be expected to toss things around,
and he adds that most cars do not decelerate more than 0.4 g.
When one examines the frames immediately after this deceleration,
one sees no visible effect on the occupants from such a dramatic
slowing. The fact that JFK is not moved by this deceleration
is particularly interesting because he no longer had voluntary
muscular control and should have been thrown forward. Yet for
many frames before and after this event he appears to be quite
immobile. So, assuming Dr. Alvarez's data are accurate, the
sudden reduction in speed that he detected would seem to constitute
further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film. Could it
be that this half-second slowing is a remnant of what was originally
a much longer, more noticeable deceleration?
Dr. Roderick Ryan believes he has discovered that the limousine
is actually standing still in Z303 but is moving in Z302, even
though the limousine appears to be moving at a nearly uniform
speed in the film during this time (Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON,
Rancho Santa Fe, CA: Laurel Publishing, 1997, pp. 158-159, 164-165).
Notes Noel Twyman,
tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from
11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second. (BLOODY
TREASON, p. 165)
Ryan made this discovery by analyzing the blurring of background
images in the two frames. Moreover, Dr. Ryan's son, who also
works in motion picture film technology, studied the film and
confirmed his father's discovery (BLOODY TREASON, p. 159).
case some might be wondering about Dr. Ryan's background, he
is a retired scientist from Kodak. He holds a Ph.D. from USC,
majoring in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for
29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film
technology. He is a recipient of the Scientific and Engineering
Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
He has authored numerous books on motion picture technology
and several articles on motion picture science. In addition,
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.
In Z353-356 we see Malcolm Summers diving to the ground. Summers
is to the right of James Altgens. In Z353 Summers' left leg
is extended most of the way out. But, in the very next frame,
Z354, amazingly, the foreleg is bent markedly backward. Can
anyone flex their foreleg to that degree so quickly? In 1/18th
of a second?
Z355 Summers' left leg is bent even farther backward. Can anyone
move their foreleg that much in 1/9th of a second (from its
position in Z353 to its position in Z355)?
in Z356, the left foot seems to be on the ground. Can anyone
whip their left foreleg backward and then put their foot on
the ground in the space of three frames, 1/6th of a second?
Another seemingly impossible action in the Zapruder film is
the extremely rapid and precise movement of Charles Brehm's
son in Z277-287. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his
father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second,
he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside
him, clapping his hands no less. In other words, in Z277 Brehm
junior is standing behind his father, but, just ten frames later,
he is standing calmly and steadily beside him and clapping his
hands--all in a fraction over half a second. Ten frames of the
Zapruder film, calculated at the assumed speed of 18.3 frames
per second, equals .56 seconds (or 560 milliseconds).
attempted to duplicate the speed of the son's movement, but
was unable to do so in the manner seen in the film. When I moved
myself around a chair fast enough to appear from behind it to
beside it in the required time, I was unable to come to a stop
the way the son does in the film. In the film the son, after
just over half a second, is standing calmly beside his father
clapping his hands. I could not duplicate this feat. Again,
when I did move myself around the chair fast enough, I could
not stop with that kind of speed and precision and come to be
clapping my hands by the time I stopped.
working on the present edition of this article, I conducted
a simulation with my eleven year-old son, Jacob. I had Jacob
stand behind a chair and asked him to duplicate the actions
of Brehm's son as quickly as possible. I showed him exactly
what he had to do. Jacob carried out the movements twelve times.
With a stop watch in hand, I timed each attempt. Jacob's times
were as follows: .97, .99, .89, .92, 1.03, .92, .89, .99, .97,
.85, .82, and .77, as compared to Brehm's son's amazing time
of .56. Jacob was unable to perform the required actions as
rapidly as Brehm's son performs them in the Zapruder film. For
his last three attempts, Jacob was practically jumping out from
behind the chair. And, bear in mind, Jacob was purposely trying
to move as rapidly as he could. Yet, he was unable to duplicate
the feat of Brehm's son.
have pressed opponents of alteration to explain this amazing
feat of Brehm's son. So far none has been able to do so. They
cite the fact that Brehm's son also moves out from behind his
father in the Muchmore film. However, as others have noted,
the extant Muchmore film is not the original, and some researchers
believe the film might have been altered in an attempt to make
it roughly conform with the edited Zapruder film.
I've said in JFK discussion groups on the Internet, I would
invite anyone to attempt to duplicate the movement of Brehm's
son--to whip around an object, turning sharply in the process,
stop on a dime with no need to steady himself, and clap at the
same time, all in the equivalent of ten frames, or in just over
half a second. To put it another way, to duplicate this movement,
a person would need to be standing behind an object one moment
and then come to be calmly standing and clapping beside it just
10/18th of a second later. If someone claims he or she can do
this, I would invite that individual to videotape the feat and
make the tape available for others to view. At this time, I
am convinced this movement is impossible, and that this episode
is proof of alteration in the Zapruder film.
Several witnesses said Kennedy was knocked visibly forward by
a shot to the head, and Dan Rather reported seeing this event
when he viewed the film the day after the shooting. No such
motion of the head is now visible in the film, only the split-second
forward movement from Z312-313, which no one could have noticed.
FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently
provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film
(albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I'm sure). DeLoach
recalls in his book HOOVER'S FBI that he watched the Zapruder
film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy
"PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD" in the film. No such motion,
of course, is seen in the current film.
James Altgens, who was standing on Elm Street, to the left front
of the limousine, with an excellent view of the shooting, when
asked if he saw the backward head snap, replied that he didn't
see it and that he thought reports of it were based on an optical
Agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, said the final
shot made Kennedy "fall forward and to his left."
Newman, who was standing on the Elm Street sidewalk right in
front of the grassy knoll and who had one of the best views
of the shooting, tried to tell New Orleans District Attorney
Jim Garrison that JFK was knocked forward and to the left as
if struck by a baseball bat, but Garrison wouldn't believe him
because the event wasn't in the film.
believe the above is good evidence that the original Zapruder
film showed Kennedy being knocked rapidly forward. How do defenders
of the film's authenticity explain this testimony? They seem
to have two approaches to this evidence: They either dismiss
all of it as mistaken or they note that Kennedy does eventually
fall forward and that this is what the witnesses were describing.
Yes, Kennedy does eventually fall forward, but this occurs after
the violent backward head snap and is a much slower motion,
a motion that is clearly the natural result of Kennedy losing
consciousness and simply falling over into his wife's lap. The
witnesses, on the other hand, seemed to be saying that the impact
of the head shot knocked or strongly pushed Kennedy forward,
which is not seen in the current film.
the current film, Kennedy's head is knocked forward from Z312-313
by the impact of a bullet. No one disputes this. With regard
to these frames, Itek noted, "the President's head is subjected
to a large acceleration forward." Itek calculated that
Kennedy's head is knocked forward 2.3 inches and his right shoulder
about 1.1 inches from Z312-313. Bear in mind that each frame
represents only 1/18th of a second. But, amazingly, by Z314
the head is suddenly moving backward. I suggest that in the
original film the marked forward motion that begins at Z312
did not end at Z313 but continued for at least several frames
and probably more, and that this was the forward movement seen
and described by witnesses.
The violent, dramatic backward head snap in Z313-323, which
for so many years was thought to be concrete proof of a shot
from the front, actually constitutes further evidence of alteration.
It has been established that no bullet striking the front of
the skull could have caused the backward head snap. However,
no bullet striking from behind could have caused this motion
either. Warren Commission supporters have put forth two theories
to explain how a bullet striking from behind might have caused
the head snap, the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction
theory. Both theories are untenable (see, for example, ("Special
Effects in the Zapruder Film: How the Film of the Century was
Edited," in James Fetzer, ed., Assassination Science, Chicago:
Catfeet Press, 1997, pp. 279-284; Mark North, Act Of Treason,
New York: Carroll and Graf, 1991, pp. 383-385). So if neither
a bullet from the front nor a bullet from behind could have
caused the head snap, what caused it? A few researchers have
speculated that Jackie was the cause of the head snap, that
is, that she shoved JFK backward, but it is extremely doubtful
that she was strong enough to throw her husband's torso backward
with such terrific force. The head snap is a physical impossibility,
at least according to everything we now know about physics and
the human body. So how can we explain it? Dr. David Mantik,
who holds a doctorate in physics, suggests that what we now
see as the head snap was originally a much slower motion and
was actually the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up
to look at him.
Seemingly impossible inconsistencies occur in the streaking
of background figures in relation to the camera's movement.
Mathematician Daryll Weatherly's vector analysis of image streaking
constitutes powerful evidence of alteration in the Zapruder
film. Dr. Mantik explains,
in an insightful analysis, takes [physicist Dr. Luis] Alvarez's
work to its logical conclusion and raises new and curious issues
related to image streaking. For example, between Z-193 and Z-194
the camera moves to the left. This is easily determined by simply
looking at the right edge of the frame--the image shifts with
respect to the frame edge, presumably as a result of uneven
camera movement (i.e., poor tracking). As Alvarez noted, such
a movement should produce streaking--of the background figures,
the sign, and the closer bystanders. But none of this is seen--it
is all quite paradoxical. Based on this, Weatherly proposes
that this is a composite scene. This is a remarkably simple
and powerful argument. It is difficult to avoid this conclusion.
(Assassination Science, p. 315)
case of inconsistent image streaking occurs in Z212. In this
frame the posts on the Stemmons Freeway sign are noticeably
blurred, but the holes in the masonry wall in the background
are very well defined. "Since neither of these objects
is moving," observes Dr. Mantik, "their visual definition
should be similar--but it is not" (Assassination Science,
A white spot on the grass behind the limousine is seen to behave
in an unnatural manner. When the spot's width is measured in
relation to the camera's tracking, the spot should be at its
smallest when the image is at the left edge of the frame. But
it doesn't do this. On some occasions, the spot's width is two
to three times what it should be. And the frame to frame displacement
of the white spot becomes especially egregious when the spot
moves into the intersprocket area. Between Z334 and Z335, the
displacement of the spot is 180 PERCENT OF NORMAL. Critics of
alteration note that the white spot also appears in a photo
taken by Richard Bothun. This, however, does not explain the
unnatural way the spot behaves in the Zapruder film.
The head turn of the driver, William Greer, from Z315-317 is
too fast--it seems to be well beyond human capability. His head
turns about 165 degrees in six frames, or in only 1/3rd of a
second. Furthermore, attorney Mike Pincher and Roy Schaeffer
argue that the Greer head turn should create blurring in the
film since the human eye can't remain focused when following
such a rapid movement, but no blurring is seen:
the reader flashes his hand in front of his face in approximation
of one-third of a second, it appears as a blur. The eyes are
incapable of staying in full focus in following this action.
If Greer's 165-degree movement in one-third of a second truly
depicted real time, it would likewise appear as a blur. But
blurring of this nature is not seen in the Zapruder film. (Assassination
Science, p. 223)
At least four witnesses saw blood and brain from Kennedy's skull
blow out toward the rear of the limousine. Blood and brain splattered
onto the left side of the follow-up car's windshield and onto
the driver's arm. A considerable amount of blood and brain also
splattered onto the two patrolmen who were riding to the limousine's
left rear. At least one of those witnesses specified that the
brain matter blew out from the back of the skull, and dozens
of witnesses, including doctors and nurses, saw a large hole
in the right rear part of President Kennedy's head. In the Zapruder
film no blood or brain is seen to spray backward. (It cannot
be said that the right frontal explosion of blood and brain,
which is itself suspect, caused all the blood splattering. In
the Zapruder film the right-frontal spray blows mainly forward,
and also up and toward the camera, and quickly dissipates--in
fact it dissipates in no more than three frames. This effusion
of spray could not have caused all of the blood splattering
Service Special Agent Sam Kinney was the driver of the follow-up
car in Kennedy's motorcade and thus had a bird's-eye view of
the shooting. In interviews with Vincent Palamara between 1992
and 1994, Kinney made some interesting and important observations
about what he saw and about his impressions concerning the shooting.
Of particular interest are Kinney's comments about the large
head wound in the President's head:
had no brain left [in the wound created by the shot]. It was
blown out. . . . there was nothing left. . . . [The wound was
in] the back of the head. I saw it hit and I saw his hair come
out . . . . I had brain matter all over my windshield and left
arm, that's how close we were to it. It was the right rear part
of his head, because that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair
come out, the piece [of skull] blow out, then the skin went
back in--an explosion in and out. ("The Secret Service
Interviews," Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Summer 1997,
p. 20, emphasis added)
Kinney was told about the description of the exit wound given
by a number of the doctors who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital
right after the shooting, he replied,
would say that, too. . . . ("The Secret Service Interviews,"
p. 20, emphasis added)
description of a large, blown-out right-rear exit wound matches
the reports given by numerous Parkland doctors and nurses and
by several witnesses at the autopsy. Also, his account of particulate
matter exploding out the back of the skull and landing on his
windshield and left arm agrees with Patrolman Bobby Hargis's
report that the head shot sent blood and brain flying toward
him so fast that when it struck him he initially thought he
himself had been hit and that the debris got all over his motorcycle
and uniform (in an interview he gave a few years ago, Hargis
described the head shot as an "explosion"). Hargis,
of course, was riding to the left rear of the limousine.
There are marked disagreements between the descriptions of those
who saw the film soon after the assassination and what is now
in the film. Dan Rather's reference to Kennedy's head being
knocked forcefully forward is one case in point. Another example
is the account of surveyor Chester Breneman, who was allowed
to study enlargements of Zapruder frames to aid him in determining
locations and distances. Breneman insisted that on some of the
frames he saw a blob of blood and brain blow out from the back
of Kennedy's head. No such event is visible on the current film.
(As mentioned, some witnesses in the plaza likewise saw blood
and brain blown backward.)
The bloody spray from the right-frontal explosion that is seen
in the film blows upward, forward, and also toward the camera,
and is really clearly visible for only one frame, and dissipates
in two to three frames--or in no more than 1/6th of a second.
Yet, in films of two ballistics tests the resulting spray is
visible for multiple frames. In other words, the right-frontal
effusion in the Zapruder film seems to disappear too quickly,
with unnatural speed.
The 12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the shots at approximately
Z208, Z276, and Z358. A head shot at Z358 corresponds with the
accounts of Emmett Hudson and James Altgens. Additionally, CE
2111, a Secret Service report, identifies the manhole cover
on the side of Elm Street as being located almost opposite the
limousine at the time of the last shot--the manhole cover is
some 70 feet beyond the spot on the street that corresponds
to Z313, which is when the head shot occurs in the current film.
(There are several indications that there were TWO head shots.
Dr. Mantik opines the first head shot occurred at around Z306-313
and that another one followed a short time later. He believes
the current rapid backward head snap that starts at Z313 was
originally a much slower motion and, as mentioned, might very
well have been the action of Jackie lifting her husband back
up to look at him.)
There is a "remarkably symmetric" plus sign at the
center of Elm Street in Z028 (Z28). This might have been used
as a register mark for aligning the film when it was being copied
by those who altered the film.
There are magnification anomalies in the film for which there
appears to be no credible natural or innocent explanation. One
clear example of this is the measured width between the two
posts on the back side of the Stemmons Freeway sign from Z312-318.
This distance increases by over 12 percent in only six frames.
Yet, from Z191-207 the interval remains constant. Some might
attempt to explain this anomaly by suggesting that the lens
was nonlinear for objects so far off the central axis. But,
even if this were the case, it would still be unusual for such
inconsistent changes to occur so abruptly within the lens, and
lens aberrations do not normally occur in such an erratic fashion
Abraham Zapruder told CBS News that he began filming as soon
as the President's limousine turned onto Elm Street from Houston
Street, as one would logically expect him to have done. But
the present Zapruder film begins with the limousine already
on Elm Street at Z133. On the day after the assassination, Dan
Rather of CBS News watched what was quite possibly an earlier
version of the film. Rather reported that in the film he watched
that day the limousine "made a turn, a left turn, off Houston
Street onto Elm Street." Again, no such event is now seen
in the film. In the current film there is a long gap between
the earlier motorcycles and the limousine's first appearance
at Z133. Why would Zapruder have expended valuable film on the
motorcycles but not have taken as much footage as he could of
the limousine? Why did he report he had filmed the limousine
when it turned onto Elm Street? And what of the left turn from
Houston Street onto Elm Street that Rather observed in the film
when he viewed it the day after the shooting?
I conclude, I would like to address two questions that have
been raised by those who deny alteration: Why would the forgers,
who were presumably trying to conceal or remove evidence of
multiple gunmen and of shots from the front, produce an altered
film that included the rapid backward head snap seen in the
current film? And, why would the forgers have produced a film
that contained indications of more than three shots? My answer
to both of these objections is twofold: One, they do not explain
the evidence of alteration. If there is scientific proof of
alteration, then these philosophical objections must be rejected.
Two, I do not believe the forgers were at all satisfied with
the results of their tampering. I think they had to create the
backward head snap because they had to remove images that were
even more unacceptable and problematic. We must keep in mind
that the Zapruder film was suppressed from public view for over
a decade. In short, I believe the forgers concluded that even
after all of their editing the film was still unacceptable,
and that this is why the film was suppressed for so long.
stress that this list contains only some of the indications
of fakery in the Zapruder film. I would urge the reader to read
the chapters on the signs of alteration in the Zapruder film
in the new book Assassination Science, edited by Professor James
Fetzer of the University of Minnesota. Concerning the evidence
that the Zapruder film has been altered, Dr. Mantik says the
strong case can now be made for extensive editing of the Zapruder
film. In fact, the conclusion seems inescapable--the film was
deliberately altered. No other explanation is in the same league,
in terms of explanatory power, for the myriad of anomalous characteristics
that are seen everywhere in this case. Many frames were excised,
some individual frames were extensively altered, others were
changed only enough to fill in for missing frames, and others
were left alone. . . .
can be made of the absurd paradoxes of (supposed) camera tracking
errors that are totally inconsistent with what actually appears
in the relevant frame? When the frame contents shift by enormous
amounts, corresponding blurs must be seen. There is no cinematic
magic that can avoid such realities. And what can be said about
intersprocket magnifications that are grossly different in two
frames, particularly when tracking nonsense surfaces in the
same frames? And now, thanks to Noel Twyman, we have the image
of The Soaring Bird and of The Black Hole. These could have
provided precisely the kind of reference points for pin registration
that would be essential for frame to frame editing.
else are these images there? They do recur persistently throughout
the film. And when they are absent, where do they go--unless
someone has deliberately omitted them? And where exactly did
the intersprocket image of the right motorcycle come from? And
why is it never visible in the central image?
does the intersprocket image of the motorcycle skip around?
Why is the intersprocket image darker after about Z235? Why
do so many odd features occur within the intersprocket area?
Why is the intersprocket image missing in frames Z413 and 414?
so the questions come, one after another, like automatic rifle
fire. How much more evidence is required before reason prevails?
At the very least, the proposal of film alteration deserves
extensive consideration and serious discussion--even among those
who are still inclined to be doubters. For these individuals,
there is now much to explain. It is time for them to put on
their ten-league boots and begin climbing this small mountain
of data. (Assassination Science, p. 340, original emphasis)
you have not read Assassination Science, I would urge you to
do so. It is quite possibly the most important book ever published
on the death of President Kennedy. It truly represents a breakthrough
in the case. Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason also presents
evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film, along with other
important developments relating to the assassination.
if some of the apparent technical anomalies in the Zapruder
film can be explained, strong indications of tampering would
still remain. To put it another way, if opponents of alteration
are able to explain the absence of background streaking in certain
frames, the magnification anomalies, the odd behavior of the
white spot, and other seeming difficulties, would this establish
the film's authenticity? No. Otherwise, do we dismiss the witnesses
who reported the limousine stopped or slowed drastically? Do
we dismiss the witnesses who saw blood and brain blown visibly
to the rear? Do we dismiss the fact that the backward head snap
is physically impossible according to everything we know about
physics and the human body? Do we dismiss the fact that Zapruder
said he filmed the motorcade from the time it turned onto Elm
Street? Do we dismiss the fact that Brehm's son is positioned
behind his father one moment but half a second later is standing
calmly clapping at his side? Do we dismiss the fact that the
12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the last shot at Z358 and
that this placement matches the testimony of Emmett Hudson and
James Altgens regarding the explosive head shot?
numerous indications of alteration in the Zapruder film naturally
raise some disturbing questions. The answer to the question
of why the film was altered is fairly apparent--to conceal obvious
evidence of a frontal shot, of multiple gunmen, and of more
than three hits. But, who performed the alteration? Whoever
they were, they were very well connected (so as to gain access
to the film) and had at their disposal considerable technical
expertise. It would seem self-evident that those who altered
the Zapruder film were either working with or following orders
from the men who were responsible for the assassination of President
it has been 34 years since the shooting, a special prosecutor
or a Congressional committee should be appointed to investigate
declassified CIA document indicates the Zapruder film was detoured
to a sophisticated CIA photographic lab relatively soon after
the assassination, and quite possibly on the night of the shooting.
Professor Phillip Melanson has discussed this declassified document
and what it reveals about the handling of the film in his famous
article "Hidden Exposure: Cover-Up and Intrigue in the
CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film" in The Third
Decade, November 1984. A summary of the main points of Melanson's
findings is included in Assassination Science.
many researchers have long suspected the Zapruder film was altered
at the CIA, there is some indication that at least part of the
alteration might have been done at the FBI.
T. Griffith is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute
in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical
Training School in San Angelo, Texas. His articles on the JFK
assassination have appeared in THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO, in THE
ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES, and in the JFK/DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY.
He is the author of the book COMPELLING EVIDENCE: A NEW LOOK
AT THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY (Grand Prairie, TX:
JFK Lancer Productions, 1996). He is also the author of four
books on Mormonism and ancient religious texts.
Stone's self-proclaimed "countermyth," JFK mocks
the doubtful veracity of the Warren Commission's
findings on the Kennedy assassination and summmarizes
some of the myriad theories that have been proposed
in its stead. Focusing on the investigation by New
Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison into the
activities of the FBI and other government agencies
as well as their attempted cover-ups, Stone weaves
fact and speculation into a compelling argument
for the reopening of the case files.
The Movie Trailer To Oliver Stone's "JFK"
Men Who Killed Kennedy
medical technician who was at the autopsy states categorically
that the body he saw was not the one shown in the
official photographs. The mortician who buried Lee
Harvey Oswald reveals a startling discovery made 18
years later. A highly decorated Army officer says
he was trained to eliminate key witnesses... Forty
years after JFK was shot in Dallas, controversy rages
around his assassination. The Men Who Killed Kennedy,
an authoritative six-part series drawing on exclusive
interviews with highly placed government sources and
independent investigators, is the most comprehensive
examination of the case ever filmed.
The Complete Story in 6 Parts:
The Coup d'Etat - A medical technician casts doubts
on the official autopsy photographs, and photo analysis
undermines the lone gunman theory.
The Forces of Darkness - See two shadowy figures on
the grassy knoll, and find out about the "lost"
home movie that contained key evidence.
The Cover-Up - An FBI agent confirms that evidence
has been suppressed, and a notorious criminal is confronted
about his possible role.
The Patsy - Witness Oswald's reaction when charged
with the shooting, and the mortician who buried the
alleged assassin reveals what he discovered 18 years
The Witnesses - The people who were there - but who
the government chose to ignore - tell their versions
of what happened at Dealey Plaza. The Truth Shall
Set You Free - See conclusive proof that the official
autopsy photos were faked, and hear from an Army Colonel
who says he was trained to eliminate witnesses to