The Evidence that Convicts the CIA of the JFK Assassination

Longtime readers of my work on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy know that I point to the evidence establishing the fraudulent autopsy that was conducted on JFK’s body to convict the U.S. military establishment of criminal complicity in the assassination itself. That’s because there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. Once one concludes that the autopsy that the military conducted on JFK’s body was fraudulent, one has automatically concluded that the military establishment was criminally complicit in the assassination itself. There is no way around that.

But what about the CIA? Is there evidence that convicts the CIA beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal complicity in the JFK assassination? Yes, there is. That evidence consists of the altered, fraudulent copy of the famous Zapruder film that the CIA secretly produced at its top-secret Hawkeyeworks photographic operation in Rochester, New York, on the weekend of the assassination.

Just as there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, there is also no innocent explanation for an altered, fraudulent copy of the film of the assassination. Once one concludes that the famous Zapruder film is an altered, fraudulent copy of the original Zapruder film, one has automatically concluded that the CIA was criminally complicit in the assassination of President Kennedy. There is no way around that.

Yes, I am thoroughly familiar with the CIA’s standard response: “Conspiracy theory, Jacob! Conspiracy theory!”

Some readers may not know that I began my professional career as a civil and criminal trial attorney in Texas. I was trained to think like a lawyer. During the twelve years of my law career, I tried both jury and non-jury cases, in both state and federal courts. Given such, I naturally think in terms of evidence, not theories. No prosecutor or criminal-defense trial lawyer goes into court and tells a jury that he has a theory of the case. He tells the jury how the evidence will establish or fail to establish the defendant’s guilt.

Essentially, what the CIA did was secretly transport the original Zapruder film on November 23, 1963 (the day after the assassination) to the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, D.C.

The next day, November 24, it then transported the original film to its top-secret photographic operation called Hawkeyeworks, which was secretly located within Kodak’s research and development section of its corporate headquarters in Rochester, where it was copied and altered.

The altered, fraudulent copy of the Zapruder film was then shipped back to NPIC in Washington, where it was presented as the original film. (Note: While Kodak had secretly partnered with the CIA to establish Hawkeyeworks within its Rochester facility, there is no evidence that Kodak was part of the CIA’s criminal activity with respect to the Zapruder film.)

Among the things that the CIA did with its altered copy was to delete frames that tended to establish the criminal culpability of the national-security establishment, including elements of the Secret Service, in the assassination.

For example, consider the route of the presidential limousine as it approached Dealey Plaza. The presidential motorcade comes down Main Street in downtown Dallas, proceeding in a westerly direction. It then turns right onto Houston Street. It then makes an extremely wide turn onto Elm Street — so wide, in fact, that it violated Secret Service protocols on making turns. Some witnesses said that the limousine had so much difficulty making the turn that it actually went onto the sidewalk or almost onto the sidewalk to navigate the turn.

Obviously, such a turn would slow JFK’s limousine to a crawl, which would make it easier for an assassin to shoot the president. Thus, that wide turn onto Elm Street is naturally something that the CIA would want to eliminate in its altered, fraudulent copy of the Zapruder film.

The extant film (that is, the film that purports to be an original) shows something highly unusual. It show motorcycle cops making the turn onto Elm Street but then suddenly jumps to show JFK’s limousine already coming down Elm Street. In other words, it doesn’t show the presidential limousine making that extremely wide turn onto Elm Street.

In her book Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the Zapruder Film, Abraham Zapruder’s granddaughter Alexandria Zapruder wrote that Zapruder didn’t film the president’s turn onto Elm Street because, she said, Zapruder wanted to be sure that he didn’t run out of film before the president was approaching where Zapruder was standing.

But how logical is that? Zapruder was about as professional a home movie-maker as an amateur could be. He had been taking home movies for many years. He knew exactly what he was doing.

If he had decided to wait until the presidential limousine was near him on Elm Street, then why would he have filmed the motorcycle cops making the turn onto Elm Street? If he was concerned about running out of film, why waste film on the motorcycle cops?

Moreover, Dealey Plaza was the end of the motorcade. Zapruder’s partner Irwin Schwartz had told him that the motorcade would likely be exiting Dealey Plaza at a high rate of speed. Given such, how likely is it that Zapruder would have waited until the president was already on Elm Street to begin filming, rather than begin filming the motorcade as it made the turn onto Elm Street and then continue filming as the limousine approached him until he ran out of film? After all, Zapruder would have had little interest in filming the back of the president after he had already passed him by.

But that’s all logic and common sense. I can already hear the “Conspiracy theory, Jacob!” crowd crying, “Where is the evidence, Jacob, to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the CIA produced an altered, fraudulent copy of the original Zapruder film?”

Fair enough. I detail that evidence in my book An Encounter with Evil. But let’s examine just a small part of that evidence in this article.

1. Consider, first, this short film of television news reporter Dan Rather. Rather saw Zapruder’s copy of the original Zapruder film on Monday morning, November 25, in Zapruder’s office. He immediately left Zapruder’s office and rushed out to make this filmed report about what he had just seen a few minutes before. In this film, Rather states: “The film shows President Kennedy’s open black limousine making a left turn off Houston Street onto Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas.”

2. Consider, second, this film of LIFE magazine reporter Richard Stolley, who viewed the original film multiple times on the weekend of the assassination. In fact, it was Stolley who negotiated the sale of the Zapruder film to LIFE magazine. Go to 6:40 of the film, where Stolley describes what the original Zapruder film showed: “And you see the motorcade snaking around Dealey Plaza….”

The extant Zapruder film shows the presidential limousine coming down Elm Street in a straight line — that is, there is no “snaking around.” Stolley’s statement establishes that the original film included the wide turn onto Elm Street because that is the only way that the presidential limousine could be described as “snaking around.”

3. Consider, third, this filmed interview of Marilyn Sitzman, Zapruder’s trusted assistant, who was with him when he filmed the assassination.

The interviewer states: “When … there is part of something that’s been uncovered that he tried out a little bit of the film ahead of time to be sure the camera was working all right and caught some of the motorcycle policemen. Do you remember — do you recall that — kind of testing the first few feet of film?”

Sitzman responds: “No. I know he took a picture of me as I walked up. Then we stood up there. He may have taken the shots to see what his view was. I only remember that when they started to make their first turn, turning into the street, and he says ‘Okay, here we go’ or something to that effect. That’s when I remember we started actually doing the filming.”

4. Consider, fourth, this other filmed interview with Sitzman. Go to 27:25. Sitzman states: “And he started filming about, oh, just before they came around the corner….”

5. Consider, fifth, another interview that Sitzman gave to an interviewer named Wes Wise, where she stated, “I only remember when they started to make their first turn … turning into the street, he said, ‘OK, here we go.…’ or something to that effect. That’s when I remember he started actually doing the filming.”

6. Consider, sixth, this filmed interview of Abraham Zapruder himself shortly after the assassination. Go to 00:30, where Zapruder states, “As I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot….”

7. Consider, seventh, an interview that Zapruder gave to an interviewer named Marvin Scott, where Zapruder stated, “And then I watched for the arrival of the, uh, cars, I saw the motorcycles, and then the car approached. As they turned I started shooting the pictures, that turned from Houston Street to Elm Street, and I was shooting as they were coming along….”

8. Consider, eighth, the sworn testimony that Zapruder gave at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, where he stated under oath, “I started shooting — when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.”

What does the CIA say about all this evidence that unquestionably proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the CIA secretly produced an altered, fraudulent copy of the Zapruder film on the weekend of the assassination at its top-secret Hawkeye facility at Kodak’s headquarters in Rochester, New York?

We all know what the CIA’s response is. It’s their standard response. “Conspiracy theory, Jacob! Conspiracy theory!”

I rest my case. The CIA’s production of an altered, fraudulent copy of the famous Zapruder film establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the CIA’s criminal culpability in the assassination of President Kennedy.

When I was still on farcebook, I began a long article on the JFK matter...until farcebook’s algorithm blocked it for reasons unexplained.

Pasted below are notes I made and quotes taken from the cited book; I hope that helps.

I have quoted Matick’s JFK Assassination Paradoxes - Summary below. There are a number of problems with the evidence in the JFK investigation - including the evidential tree - and this completely-undermines the integrity of the WCR:
• “The following items have been altered: the autopsy skull X-rays (the White Patch and the 6.5 mm object), the autopsy photographs (e.g., the back of the head), many Oswald items, and the Zapruder film. If these changes had not been made—especially the posterior skull photographs—conspiracy would have been obvious to one and all. Therefore, the conspirators really had no choice: they could either let the data tell the truth—or else undertake a widespread cover-up. For them, the latter choice was inevitable. And they did succeed. After all, even though their work was not perfect, it was good enough that their deception succeeded for well over 50 years. In fact, it only needed to work for the first few years. It was only with the first public showing of the Zapruder film (March 6, 1975) by Robert Groden and Dick Gregory on the Geraldo Rivera show69— (“Goodnight America”) that the public became concerned. Now we know much, much more—thanks to legions of dedicated American citizens, mostly not on the federal payroll.
• In those early years, aside from the Oswald evidence, virtually no one challenged the authenticity of the other evidence. Even today, despite the overwhelming evidence for these deceptions, even many WC skeptics still cannot accept X-ray alteration. And even more WC skeptics still find Z-film alteration intolerable. But the logical reply to these skeptics is obvious: If you accept that set A of the evidence (e.g., the Oswald items) has been altered, why do you find it so difficult to believe that sets B, C, and D have also been altered? And, of course, the corollary is this: If you believe that the evidence is chaste and unadulterated, how then do you explain all of these paradoxes? After all, this disparate collection of evidence is surely the most prolific and profound of any murder case in history.”
I highly-recommend reading his analysis in full. Nearly all of the personnel interviewed recalled a wound which was NOT SUPPORTED by the autopsy photographs presented to the HSCA. Furthermore, closeup photos purported to be of JFK’s head showing an entrance would not only showed no such wound, but showed hair which looked washed, contrasting greatly with other photos of blood-mottled hair mixed with brain matter (see below).
The bullet, by the way - aka CE-399, ostensibly-responsible for JFK’s back & neck wound, plus Gov. Connally’s 5 wounds, including 2 broken bones, aka the magic bullet - is depicted below with a statement to the Warren Commission:
click to add a caption📷Left Center Right Remove

And below is a depiction of the test rounds:
click to add a caption📷Left Center Right Remove

Conveniently for the lone gunman theory, the pristine bullet - CE-399 - connected Oswald to the assassination with matching ballistics (it had been fired from Oswald’s Carcano rifle).
Contrasted with the recollection of witnesses, including Dr. Robert N. McClelland of Parkland Hospital:
Sketch by Dr. Robert McClelland depicting a hole near JFK’s ear📷Left Center Right Remove
Considering all of the evidence that the recovered skull fragments from the rear seat and floor of the limousine were “occipital” in nature, it is clear that JFK arrived at Parkland Hospital missing a piece of his skull and that a “hole” was present. Other witness testimony stated that JFK’s head in the trauma room lay exposed to his cranial cavity. It was also observed that when the displayed scalp/skull flaps were returned to position, it was hard to tell that there was injury (other than all ht blood & brain matter in JFK’s hair).
From this source:
• “In reviewing a 1966 drawing by Robert N. McClelland, M.D., which depicts a large wound to the posterior skull (see drawing above.), Dr. Jones wrote on March 4, 1994 that the drawing “only indicates the skull involvement but not the true destruction of the skull and brain.” Nevertheless, he admitted that the drawing indicates the “general” location of the wound, “but certainly not with as defined edges as shown in this depiction.” Dr. Jones’ 1964 testimony describes “what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull” (WCH 6, page 56). In 1983, he reportedly told author David Lifton, “[i]f they brought him in here today, I’d still say he was shot from the front” (Best Evidence, page 705). On August 10, 1992, Dr. Jones was asked to comment on the accuracy of the quote, and stated only that “it may have been taken a bit out of context.” He added that “given the set of circumstances as we saw that day, if they brought him in today, I would tend — seeing what I saw, I would say that he was shot from the front.” He qualified this statement by cautioning, “you’ve got to reconsider what you would say based on what’s been found out since. But circumstances as they were when you first saw him that day ... my assumption would be the same.””
The fact remains that aside from witness recollections of the fist-sized hole in the back of JFK’s head, we will never see any forensic evidence which conclusively disputes the Oswald/rear-to-front ballistic conclusion.
Furthermore, a researcher went back and interviewed all of those present for the JFK autopsy:
• “The results of the autopsy witness survey appear below. There are 32 witnesses mentioned here. I do not claim the list is neccessarily exhaustive, but it includes all the participants I could discover. All were present at the 22/11/63 JFK autopsy, most throughout, some for shorter periods. Of these 32, 11 provide no useful information one way or the other, leaving 21 who do. Of this 21, 16 provide statements that suggest there was in fact no entry wound to the head found at the autopsy proper. That’s 76%. Only 5 suggest there was. They are the 3 autopsists, who disagree amongst themselves on the nature of this supposed wound, plus Roy Kellerman & John Stringer. Of these 5, a full 100% claim the entry wound in the rear scalp was actually a little (a couple of cm) above the rear hairline, some 2” below the eop. On this, then, there is a surprising (and very interesting) unanimity.”
The location of an entry wound “2 inches below the EOP (depicted below) poses a major problem for the single bullet theory.
Regardless, if it is to be maintained that the entry wound was near the hairline, this also destroys the WCP, lending credence to the Mortal Error theory that a Secret Service agent in the trailing car accidentally fired a round from an AR-15, presenting a significant complication to the working premise that JFK was killed by a lone gunman, let alone Lee Harvey Oswald
Boswell makes clear in his interview with the HSCA that there was missing skull just about the base of the ear, just like that depicted in Dr. Robert McClelland’s drawing:
• “Q ...Now I’d like to ask you a question about what is underneath the scalp of what we are looking at now. Let’s take the marking that appears towards the hairline right at the base of the neck, or where the hairline meets the neck. If we take the point above that, where would you say that the scalp is or that the skull will be missing underneath the scalp that we can view there? A Probably right about here. Q So you’re— A Just about the base of the ear. Q So you’re pointing to approximately halfway up the ruler that we can observe and to the right of that small fragment, so the skull is missing— A Right.
• Q Just to try a different description, because we’re trying to put this into words where we’re looking at photographs, would it be fair to say—again, we are imagining President Kennedy is standing erect, although he’s lying down in this photograph. So with the ruler pointing up, would the portion as it would appear on this photograph to the left of his right ear all be the portion of the skull that was missing? A Yes. (Boswell ARRB)
• “Regarding the head wound, DR. BOSWELL said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head.” (HSCA interview Purdy, August 17, 1977).
Finally, it is universally-accepted that Jackie Kennedy was reaching across the trunk after the head shot to retrieve a piece of skull (which she later gave to doctors at Parkland Hospital, asking “Will this help?); the skull fragment could only have landed on the trunk if it came from the rear of his skull. The fragment - along with JFK’s brain - has curiously disappeared.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.