Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More Proof of Fakery

by Jim Fetzer (with James Norwood)

“The second she jumped up was the second that everyone there knew something horrible had happened,” Dr. Glover said. “This was the most sophisticated woman in the world, and she was climbing out of the back seat in a skirt and she was sliding across the trunk. You couldn’t say, ‘OK, he’s dead,’ but you knew it was horrible. It was beyond unimaginable.”–Toni Glover, Ph.D.

Toni Glover, JFK witness
Toni Glover, Ph.D., JFK witness
The alteration of the home movies of the assassination of JFK is among the most powerful proofs of government complicity in the assassination.  We know when and where the Zapruder was faked: the original was taken to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) on Saturday, 23 November 1963.  It was an 8mm already split film that had been developed in Dallas. The substitute was brought to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 November 1963. 
It was a 16mm unsplit film developed in Rochester at a secret CIA photo lab, “Hawkeyeworks”, adjacent to Kodak Headquarters. The Zapruder camera uses a 16mm role of celluloid, where you film one side (“Side A”) and then have to take it out and flip it over to film the other (“Side B”), where to show the whole it would be necessary to develop the film, split it and splice it to run as a single strip.
Doug Horne, Senior Analyst for Military Records for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), has been the source of the most important information about this, some of which I originally published in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), but where I have published more since:
So we know when and where it was altered and by whom, which makes the resistance to film alteration by such “experts” as Robert Groden and Josiah Thompson completely absurd, unless they are maintaining that stance, not because they believe it, but to maintain the JFK cover-up.

Clint Hill vs. the Zapruder film

Another significant confirmation that the films have been edited comes from Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who rushed forward to protect Jackie during the shooting.  For 50 years now, Clint has consistently maintained the same story, which he reiterated during a book signing:
He rushed forward, climbed on the back of the limo, pushed Jackie (who had gone onto the trunk to retrieve a chunk of Jack’s skull and brains) back into the seat, lay across their bodies, peered into a fist-sized hole at the back of his head and gave a “thumb’s down” to other agents.
What is striking about Clint’s report in relation to the Zapruder film is that he does not make contact with Jackie in the extant version, where the closest he comes to her is shown in frames like these in which he does not make physical contact with her:
As close as Clint gets in the ZapruderWhen a theory is true, further investigation leads to more and more confirmations, some of which are entirely unexpected.  Such is the case with Zapruder film alteration, where we have at least eight lines of proof that the film is a fabrication, as I have explained in“The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden” and in “The JFK War: What’s going on with Len Osanic and Black Op Radio?”  Now there turns out to be even more proof of film fakery.

The Nix Film vs. the Zapruder

Remarkably, among the other films taken in Dealey Plaza that day was one by Orville Nix, who was standing at Houston and Main.  His great-grand-daughter has created a short video about his film, which the FBI took and butchered.  But look at what some of those frames display:
Since it can be difficult to catch exactly what’s going on, here are some screen captures showing that Clint Hill actually moves farther forward and makes contact with Jackie, which of course is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which means we have yet another line of proof of film fakery:
Clint further forward than in Zapruder
Clint pushing Jackie in Nix film
Clint pushing Jackie back into the seat

James Norwood’s observation 

James Norwood, who has offered a course on the JFK assassination for 20 years on the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota had made an additional comparative point:
* In the Nix, Jackie’s arms are extended virtually to the rear bumper of the limousine
* In the Zapruder film, Jackie’s arms reach only to central area of the limousine trunk
Moreover, the top of the vehicle trunk was littered with blood and brain matter from the blowout to the back of JFK’s head, due to a shot from the front.  But none of this debris is apparent in either the Nix or Z-films.
Professor Norwood located a simultaneous comparison of Nix-Zapruder with Jackie and Clint Hill, shown here. Jackie’s hand (with the striking white) glove extends all the way to the vehicle’s bumper. By contrast, the gloved hand in the Zapruder film reaches only to the mid-line of the trunk!

Toni Glover, “The girl in blue”

Professor Norwood’s observations have been confirmed on the occasion of the 50th anniversary, where a new Dealey Plaza witness has come forward.  She is Toni Glover, Ph.D., who is now an Associate Professor of English at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania. On 22 November 1963, Toni was an 11-year-old standing on one of the Dealey Plaza abutments, just like Abraham Zapruder.
Toni’s perch at the corner of Houston and Elm gave her a bird’s eye view of the limousine slowly lumbering down Elm Street.  She witnessed the head explosion and the debris on the trunk. In a CNN interview, Toni stated that “the back of the trunk was a mess . . . . covered in brains and blood.” Like many other witnesses, she has been afraid to come forward until now.
The Girl in Blue
This “mess” has been carefully edited out of the home movies.  One of the Secret Service agents observed the “mess” in Washington, D.C., when the limousine arrived back from Dallas, as I reported in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), on pages 27-28, and became nauseous at the sight.  But in a frame-by-frame examination of the Z-film, the trunk of the limousine is pristine.  The rich blue color of the trunk even reflects the clouds in the sky!
Toni Glover also indicated that over the years, she was afraid to come forward with her story due to what happened to other eyewitnesses.  To students of the assassination, she was known only as “the girl in blue.” It took an act of courage for her to come forward and report what she personally experienced in watching the murder of the president, which, along with the images from the Nix film, provides yet another line of proof that the home movies have been “fixed”.

The Simplest Proof

The simplest proof, which I emphasized in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), is that the blow-out to the back of JFK’s head is visible in frame 374.  It had occurred to me that the perps might have been so fixated on frames close to 313 that they overlooked that it might be visible in later frames, where I found it in frame 374.  How can anyone persist in claiming that the film is authentic when it is not even internally consistent?
Frame 374 copyThis discovery resolves the difference in the description of the back of the head wound, which was a fist-sized blow-out at the back of the head (at Parkland), then became a massive, missing 1/3 of the skull (at Bethesta), but was then contracted to a small entry wound at the crown of the head (by the HSCA).  And it also confirms David W. Mantik’s analysis of X-ray alteration:
And it establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zapruder film and other home movies have been altered to conceal it, which comparisons between earlier frames and frame 374 demonstrate.  How could any rational soul persist in maintaining that those films are authentic in the face of the mountain of proof we have adduced that they were subjected to alteration?

A Summary of Proof 

Beyond the simplest proof, frame 374, we have not only (1) more than 60 witnesseswho reported seeing the limousine either slow dramatically or come to a complete stop (where it slowed dramatically as it came to a complete stop), but (2) Officer James Chaney motored forward to notify Chief Jesse Curry that the president had been shot (which has been confirmed by multiple witnesses), and (3) Clint Hill has explained his actions at the time (where he has been consistent for 50 years about what he did then).
In addition, (4) the original 8mm already split film was taken to the NPIC on Saturday, while the 16mm unsplit replacement was brought there on Sunday; (5) a half-dozen or more individuals have viewed another and more complete film (which appears to be the original) and confirmed the limo stop and the two shots to the head, and (6) John P. Costella, Ph.D., has provided a precise visual tutorial that explains the evidence internal to the film that, in its totality, it is a fabrication.
(7) A group of Hollywood experts has confirmed that the blow-out at the back of the head was painted over in black (where they were astonished at the crudity of the masking) and (8) Doug Horne has disproven the time-line argument with extensive corroboration of the two NPIC events.  And now (9) we have major discrepancies between the Nix and the Zapruder, which are complemented by yet another witness, Toni Glover, Ph.D., whose testimony further confirms the photographic deception.
By now, it should be apparent that those, such as Robert Groden and Josiah Thompson, who continue to insist that the Zapruder film has not been altered, are committing acts of irrationality of belief.  The only explanation that seems to be remotely reasonable to explain this is that they are intent on upholding the false position that the film is authentic to perpetuate the cover-up and mislead the American people about the true causes of the death of our 35th president by protecting those who were responsible.
James Norwood, Ph.D. (University of California, Berkeley) taught humanities and the performing arts at colleges and universities throughout the country until his retirement in 2011. Among forty different courses, he frequently offered a semester course on the JFK assassination. [NOTE: This is one in a series of articles being republished since veterans today.com deleted them in a dispute with its Senior Editor, Gordon Duff, about which I have since written several articles.]

No comments:

Post a Comment