Author and researcher Robert Groden joins S.T. Patrick to discuss the controversy over Zapruder film alteration. In this episode, Groden lays out his reasons for believing the Z-film has not been altered at any time. Also discussed is the chain of custody for the Zapruder film, the story of its recording, differentiating tampering from alteration, “jiggle analysis,” the details regarding the specific film used by Zapruder, the work done by Thom Whitehead and Sydney Wilkinson, whether or not W&W contacted Groden, Oliver Stone’s source film for the JFK trial scene, which JFK actor was most interested in the details of the case, the Absolute Prof controversy, and so much more.
Robert Groden is the author of High Treason, The Killing of a President, and Absolute Proof. he is best known for presenting the Zapruder film to the public by showing it on Geraldo Rivera’s “Good Night America” program in March 1975.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Great interview S.T. . Robert’s information remains important in this field. So many people do not take the time to evaluate the information in it’s time period. If all a person knows is digital film, they cannot truly understand the complexities of altering Kodachrome film in 1963! And that makes all the difference in evaluating the truth of the Zapruder Film. It is our best “picture” of a horrible crime. Your commentary regarding working together and allowing others their own opinion is so true. I hope people will take that idea to heart as they continue to explore the complexities of the JFK Assassination.
Janet, have you considered the finding by Doug Horn? My perception is he has evidence not addressed by Mr. Groden’s comments.
This is perhaps one of the most interesting and best interviews the show has ever done. Its extremely difficult for a lay person to make a judgement between the views of Robert Groden and those of Douglas Horne. The former say minimal or no alteration (other then two splices) and the latter wholesale fabrication.and alteration carried out at Kodak’s Hawkeyeworks . Without having an extremely advanced knowledge of 1960’s film technology this is a really tough call.for a layman. I think Mr Grodens argument about no time for any alterations to be carried out is rather erroneous as they would have had all the time in the world given how long it took for the film to finally get into the public domain. The Zapruder film was like the holly grail, everybody knew about it but nobody could actually view it. That said Mr Groeden clearly has enormous technical expertise and his arguments are really quite persuasive. I think I would have to say at this time case is not proven either way although I do suspect some alteration just not on anything like the scale alleged by Mr Grodens opponents. Re filmed background and optical printers all still sounds a little implausible. This was a fantastic show.
I offer the following response to the comments posted here by Janet Hurley and Mark Lynch.
First, for Janet Hurley: I thoroughly considered only the technology available in 1963 when I wrote my 200 page Zapruder film chapter in volume IV of my book. The two options available were (1) the traveling matte, and (2) aerial imaging. As I explained, the use of a traveling matte to alter the Zapruder film is ruled out, since there would have been too much contrast buildup and there would have been obvious registration errors in the end product. Anyone who has read my Z film chapter will know that the types of alteration I considered—namely, blacking out the exit wound at the back of the head, removal of exit debris frames traveling to the left rear of JFK’s head, and the possible removal of a brief car stop—involved the use of a 1963-era “aerial optical printer (modified with an animation stand),” and step printing (reproduction of only some frames, not all frames), to alter and edit the film. Since we know that the Kodak R&D lab in Rochester called “The Hawkeye Plant” (or “Hawkeyeworks”) is the location where the film went on 11/24/63, we can be sure that optical printers were present, since Kodak was developing new types of motion picture film at the lab and this was their pre-eminent, worldwide headquarters research facility. The director of The Hawkeye Plant told the CIA’s Dino Brugioni that “we could do anything” with film, so I don’t think that the presence of optical printers at that facility can be seriously doubted. Furthermore, I obtained my base knowledge about 1963 visual effects technology from Professor Raymond Fielding’s landmark 1965 textbook about the “visual black arts” of Hollywood, titled “The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography,” published by the University of Houston. You can obtain a copy today from a used bookstore, as I did. The book contains not only beautifully detailed descriptions of how visual special effects were created in the 1950s and 1960s, but provided a beautiful schematic of an aerial imaging optical printer, and a photograph of same. Anyone who doubts my writing on this subject can refer to the textbook.
For Mark Lynch: I have never posited “wholesale fabrication and alteration” of the Zapruder film; what I posit is a minimal degree of alteration, and no fabrication whatsoever. There are those in the alterationist community who have gone overboard, as I see it, and who have posited that the Zapruder film is a “total fabrication,” and that the entire film was reconstructed (somehow!) from 2 or 3 other films. I most definitely do not subscribe to this view. Some alterationists do not have their feet firmly planted in the realities of film technology in 1963—but I am not one of those people. The Zapruder film was at Hawkeyeworks in Rochester for about 12 hours on 11/24/63, and only minimal alteration (using step printing to optically remove some frames, and an aerial optical printer with an animation stand to black out the back of the head and add false damage to the top of the head) could have been accomplished in that timeframe. It is my conclusion, based on the evidence-based timeline—as I understand that timeline—that this was the only time (and location) where the film was altered, and that it was a rush-job, and crudely done. The evidence that the work was crudely done is all too apparent today in the work of Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead.
I will be discussing the film research of my two California friends in PODCAST 107, for those who wish to know more about these matters.
Doug Horne
I have comments for Robert and Doug,
Robert, putting this to rest requires a public analysis by qualified experts. I am not selling any books. I don’t want to take down the best evidence.
Call me stupid all you want. The arguments you’re making to say the film has not been altered are not conclusive to an objective observer. This must be wildly frustrating for you, The strength of your argument is your honest assessment from your unique first hand observation of the Zapruder film. You KNOW the film is authentic, from your expertise. The problem is there is no such thing as an expert who never is in error. What is needed is a public analysis of the film by qualified experts. Your statements cannot be relied upon as proof.
Doug,
I was so pleased to have just found this episode, plus episode 107.. Prior to seeing episode 107 in particular, I was frustrated by having studied your work mentioning the Wilkinson work, but I could find no other reference to that work.
I currently am participating in editing the Wikipedia article on the Zapruder film. My edits are being challenged on the grounds the Sixth Floor Museum has an FAQ saying the film has not been altered. As far I know, the Wilkinson work is the only potentially authoritative observation of the alteration. Their pending publication on this matter is essential to this topic.
The fact there were two briefing board events at NPIC the weekend after the assassination, combined with dissembled information release by Hicks to the Rockefeller Committee, especially Hick’s response to Dino’s showing him a two-panel briefing board, the unsplit film from Hawkeye works makes it hard to say the film today is unaltered. That said, the case is heck of a lot stronger if the alteration can be observed directly. That observation is documented by your statements, but I am afraid that is a lot weaker than what the Wilkinson’s may have to offer.
For Dan Allen, from Doug Horne
I appreciate your comments about episode 107. You understand the importance of the 2 briefing board events at NPIC the weekend of the assassination (namely, the compartmentalized creation of a second set of sanitized briefing boards, made from an altered film), and the way in which Dino Brugioni’s new boss at NPIC, Mr. Hicks, dissembled to the Rockefeller Commission and hid from them the fact that a first set of briefing boards was created from an unaltered version of the film, and was then “deep-sixed” by the CIA. And yes, the receipt of an unsplit or unslit film from Hawkeyeworks by Homer McMahon (at NPIC event #2) is strong evidence that the film was indeed altered, since the camera-original film Dino Brugioni handled on 11/23 had been slit to 8mm.
Like you, I look forward to the completion of Sydney and Thom’s film, “Alteration.” The 18-minute preview recently aired by them at two JFK conferences last November was very encouraging. I am aware of other interviews—and other, expanded portions of some of the interviews they previewed—that will be very persuasive to any objective and curious viewing audience.
I can’t and won’t engage in predictions of when their film will be completed and released. In the past I have seriously underestimated when their film might be completed. The real world—“life”—has a habit of getting in the way sometimes. But I do know they are proceeding with their editing and their fundraising, and I am confident about the impact their completed film will have on the debate surrounding questions of authenticity and alteration. The important thing to me is that they have engaged Hollywood film professionals—a great many of them—in their scientific study of the film. Those Hollywood film professionals have literally centuries of collective experience behind them in the “post-production” of film: namely, editing, visual effects, and the restoration of older films. They clearly know the difference between shadows, and visual effects and animation. And none of the people they interviewed show any evidence of strong bias re: the JFK assassination, nor do they appear to have an axe to grind.
Thanks for your interest. I hope your comments steer people interested in better understanding the 2 NPIC events (on the weekend of the assassination) toward watching Shane O’Sullivan’s 85-minute short subject “The Zapruder Film Mystery;” I have posted a link to that following episode 107.
Robert Groden’s life is the Z Film. HE KNEW looking at each frame that somebody used a sharpie to BLACK OUT JFK’s wound in the lower back of his head in more than one frame. The Sharpie like marks are shaped differently in each frame.
?For Groden to admit the film is faked, altered, had frames removed, he would be admitting that the work he did on the film was a scam from day one!
Obviously some of what Groden says about the Zapruder film, particularly when it was split, is contrary to findings as revealed in work done by and for the ARRB, described by Douglas Horne in episode 107 — was Groden unaware of the ARRB work when this episode was recorded? — it would be interesting to have Groden address the ARRB findings.