Abraham Zapruder

Abraham Zapruder

Eddie Barker: Abraham Zapruder, wie se film oor die sluipmoord breedvoerig op gisteraand se program bestudeer is, staan ​​op hierdie muurtjie reg langs die rand van die grasveld. Nou, skote van agter daardie stokheining daarbuite sou amper by sy oor moes fluit. Mnr. Zapruder, toe ons hom hier ondervra het, was geneig om saam te stem dat die knou nie betrokke was nie.

Abraham Zapruder: Ek is nie 'n ballistiese kenner nie, maar ek glo dat as ek skote uit my regteroor kom, ek 'n ander geluid sou hoor. Ek het skote hoor aankom - ek sou nie weet in watter rigting ek moes sê nie - maar hulle is uit die Texas Book Depository gery en almal klink dieselfde. Daar was geen verskil in klank nie.

Die volgende kan van belang wees vir diegene wat aan die begin 'n kykie wil soek, alhoewel dit geneig is om vrae te stel oor die enigste bewys wat ons weet werklik, ongeskonde, onveranderd en 100% sonder gebrek is. Eienskappe wat nuuskierig afwesig is by die karakter van die een wat dit verfilm het ...

Oorweeg:

Abraham Zapruder-White Russiese affiliasie, 32ste graad Mason, aktiewe lid van 2 CIA Eiendomsorganisasies: The Dallas Council on World Affairs and The Crusade For A Free Europe;

Hierdie twee organisasies was CIA (gesteunde) huishoudelike bedrywighede in Dallas, waarvan die lidmaatskap die volgende insluit:

Abraham Zapruder, Clint Murchison (destyds eienaar van die Dallas Cowboys), Byrd, (eienaar van die Texas School Book Depository), Sarah Hughes, wat LBJ as die 36ste president ingesweer het terwyl Air Force One nog op die grond was in Dallas, George DeMohrenschildt, (CIA kontrakagent EN beste vriend van LHO), George Bush (ook goeie vriend van George DeMohrenschildt), Neil Mallon, (mentor dat Bush sy seun, Neil, na genoem het), HL Hunt, en Demitri Von Mohrenschildt (George D se broer).

In 1953 en 1954 werk 'n vrou, Jeanne LeGon, saam met Abraham Zapruder by 'n hoëklereontwerpfirma, Nardis van Dallas. Jeanne LeGon het die klere ontwerp en Abraham Zapruder het die patrone en die materiaal vir haar gesny.

Terloops, in die doodsberig van Abraham Zapruder staan ​​die datum/jaar waarop hy uit Nardis van Dallas vertrek het, verkeerdelik, met verwysing na 1949. Die korrekte jaar was 1959, [dieselfde jaar wat sy "vennoot in ontwerp" Jeanne LeGon bekend geword het, Jean LeGon DeMohrenschildt. .. Sy is getroud met Lee Oswald se BESTE VRIEND (te wees), CIA -kontrakagent, George DeMohrenschildt!].

Ek het nie my kamera nie, maar my sekretaresse het my gevra waarom ek dit nie het nie, en ek het vir haar gesê dat ek nie eers die president sou sien nie, en op een of ander manier het sy my aangespoor en ek het huis toe gegaan en my kamera gekry en gekom terug en eers het ek gedink ek kan foto's uit die venster neem, want my gebou is reg langs die gebou waar die vermeende sluipmoordenaar was, en dit is net oorkant Elmstraat 501, maar ek het gedink - ek kan afneem en beter foto's kry, en ek afgestap. Ek glo dit was Elmstraat en tot by die onderste deel, nader aan die ondergang, en ek het probeer om 'n spasie te kies waar ek die foto's kon neem, en ek het een plek probeer en dit was op 'n smal rand en ek kon nie balanseer nie myself baie. Ek het 'n ander plek probeer en dit het tekens of tekens wat daar was, belemmer, en uiteindelik het ek 'n ander plek naby die onderweg gevind wat 'n vierkant van beton was, ek weet nie wat u dit noem nie, miskien ongeveer 4 voet hoog.

Na die eerste skoot - ek sien hom leun en na die tweede skoot - is dit moontlik nadat ek gesien het, weet ek, toe begin ek skree: "Hulle het hom doodgemaak, hulle het hom doodgemaak," en ek het net gevoel dat iemand saamgekom het op hom en ek het nog steeds die foto's geskiet totdat hy onder die ondergang gekom het - ek weet nie eens hoe ek dit gedoen het nie. En toe, ek het nie eers onthou hoe ek van die abutment daar afgekom het nie, maar ek was daar, en ek het na toe gestap - terug na my kantoor en skree: "Hulle het hom doodgemaak, hulle het hom vermoor," en die mense wat ek onderweg ontmoet het, het nie eers geweet wat gebeur het nie en hulle het aanhoudend geskree: "Wat het gebeur, wat het gebeur, wat het gebeur?" Dit het gelyk asof hulle 'n skoot gehoor het, maar hulle weet nie presies wat gebeur het toe die motor weggejaag het nie, en ek het net aangehou skree: "Hulle het hom doodgemaak, hulle het hom doodgemaak, hulle het hom vermoor," en uiteindelik by my aangekom kantoor en my sekretaresse - ek het haar gesê om die polisie of die geheime diens te bel - ek weet nie wat sy doen nie, en dit is omtrent alles. Ek was baie ontsteld. Uiteraard kon ek my nie voorstel dat so iets gedoen word nie. Ek het net na my lessenaar gegaan en daar gestop totdat die polisie gekom het, en dan moes ons 'n plek kry om die films te ontwikkel. Ek het geweet ek het iets, ek het gedink dit kan van hulp wees - ek het nie geweet wat nie.

Mnr LIEBELER - Is u in besigheid hier in Dallas, meneer Zapruder?

Meneer ZAPRUDER - Ja.

Mnr LIEBELER - In watter besigheid is u besig?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Vervaardiging van damesrokke.

Mr. LIEBELER - Die vervaardiging van damesrokke?

Mnr LIEBELER - Ek verstaan ​​dat u destyds 'n paar rolprente geneem het?

ZAPRUDER - Dit is korrek ..

Mnr LIEBELER - Terwyl u met u kamera op hierdie aanslag staan, kom die motorfiets in Houstonstraat af en draai links in Elmstraat, nie waar nie?

Meneer ZAPRUDER - Dit is reg.

Mnr LIEBELER - En dit loop verder in Elmstraat in die rigting van die drievoudige onderweg; Is dit korrek?

Meneer ZAPRUDER - Dit is korrek. Ek het begin skiet - toe die motorfiets begin inkom, glo ek dat ek begin het en wou dit van Houstonstraat af kom.

Mnr LIEBELER - Vertel ons wat gebeur het toe u hierdie foto's geneem het.

Meneer ZAPRUDER - Wel, toe die motor amper in die ry kom - ek glo dit was amper in die ry. Ek het hier opgestaan ​​en deur 'n tele lens geskiet, 'n zoomlens, en toe ek bereik - ek verbeel my dit was hier - hoor ek die eerste skoot en ek sien die president leun en homself so gryp ( hou sy linkerborsgebied vas).

Mnr LIEBELER - Gryp u homself aan die voorkant van sy bors vas?

Meneer ZAPRUDER - Regtig - so iets. Met ander woorde, hy het so gesit en waai en dan na die skoot gaan hy net so.

Mnr LIEBELER - Hy het regop in die motor gesit en u het die skoot gehoor en die president sien neerslaan?

Meneer ZAPRUDER - leunend - leun na die kant van Jacqueline. Vir 'n oomblik het ek gedink dit is, jy weet, soos jy sê: "Ag, hy het my," as jy 'n skoot hoor - jy het hierdie uitdrukkings gehoor en toe sien ek - ek glo nie die president gaan maak grappies soos hierdie, maar voor ek die kans gekry het om my gedagtes te organiseer, hoor ek 'n tweede skoot en toe sien ek hoe sy kop oopgaan en die bloed en alles kom uit en ek begin - ek kan skaars daaroor praat [die getuie huil ].

Mnr LIEBELER - Dit is goed, meneer Zapruder, wil u 'n drankie drink? Waarom stap u nie uit en drink 'n bietjie water nie?

Meneer ZAPRUDER - ek is jammer - ek skaam my regtig, maar ek kon dit nie help nie.

Mnr LIEBELER - Niemand moet ooit skaam wees om so te voel nie, meneer Zapruder. Ek voel self ook so. Dit was 'n vreeslike ding. Laat ek nou net 'n oomblik teruggaan en u vra hoeveel skote u in totaal gehoor het.

Meneer ZAPRUDER - Ek het gedink ek hoor twee, dit kan drie wees, want na my mening het ek gedink hy is op die tweede raak - ek weet regtig nie. Die hele ding wat gebeur het - dit was baie ontstellend, en soos u sien, het ek die hele tyd 'n bietjie beter geword, en dit het weer opgeduik en dit het vir my na die tweede skoot gelyk, maar ek weet nie. Ek het nooit eers 'n derde skoot gehoor nie.

Mnr LIEBELER - U het geen skoot gehoor nadat u hom sien slaan het nie?

Meneer ZAPRUDER - ek het die tweede gehoor - na die eerste skoot - ek het hom sien leun en na die tweede skoot - is dit moontlik nadat ek gesien het, weet ek, toe begin ek skree: "Hulle het hom doodgemaak, hulle het hom doodgemaak," en ek het net gevoel dat iemand hom teëgekom het en ek het nog steeds die foto's geskiet totdat hy onder die deurgang gekom het - ek weet nie eers hoe ek dit gedoen het nie. Ek het geweet ek het iets, ek het gedink dit kan van hulp wees - ek het nie geweet wat nie.

Donald Purdy: Wat is dit omtrent die normale paaie van koeëls, wat u tot die gevolgtrekking bring dat hierdie diagramme wat die foto's illustreer, u kan aflei dat die koeël nie deur beide mans gegaan het nie?

Cyril Wecht: die onvermydelike feit dat, as 'n koeël, veral 'n vuurwapen uit 'n hoëspoedwapen, redelik hoë spoed, ongeveer 2 000 voet per sekonde se snelsnelheid nie, tensy dit iets van vaste stof, soos been of iets anders, tref, daardie koeël sal in 'n reguit lyn reis.

Donald Purdy: Meneer die voorsitter, ek sou op die oomblik vra dat die item gemerk JFK-uitstalling F-245, wat 'n opblaas van raam 230 van die Zapruder-film is, op die rekord gebring word ... Dr. Wecht, na u mening , kon goewerneur Connally die skade aan sy pols opgedoen het wat in die mediese verslae beskryf word en steeds die hoed hou soos op hierdie foto getoon?

Cyril Wecht: Nee; absoluut nie. In F-245, wat 'n opblaas van die Zapruder-raam 230 is, word ons onder die enkele koeëlteorie vertel dat goewerneur John Connally, vir ongeveer 'n tydperk van ongeveer anderhalf sekonde, reeds deur die regterbors met die regterskoot geskiet is long deurboor en stort, deur die regter pols, met die distale punt van die radius fyn en die radiale senuwee gedeeltelik afgesny. Ek het in die vorige getuienis 'n vae verwysing na 'n senuwee gehoor, maar ek het nie die volgende bespreking gehoor waarna ek gewag het oor senuweeskade nie. Daar was senuweeskade, ja, aan die radiale senuwee. En die duim wat hierdie groot Texas -wit Stetson bevat wat nodig is om in aanraking te kom met die wys- of wysvinger en middelvingers om die hoed vas te hou, word deur die radiale senuwee innerlik gegryp. Let op in F-245 dat die hoed steeds gehou word en dat goewerneur Connally nie reageer nie. Dit is weer 'n baie wakker individu, onder 'n baie spesiale omstandigheid, en ek glo of aanvaar nie vir een oomblik die verhaal wat ons moet aanvaar onder die enkele bullet -teorie dat hierdie here, op hierdie punt, anderhalf sekonde voorheen, is reeds deur sy bors, deur sy pols en in sy linker dy geskiet.

Donald Purdy: Dr. Wecht, is dit u mening gebaseer op hierdie uitstalling, JFK-uitstalling F-245, dat goewerneur Connally nog nie op enige manier beseer is nie?

Cyril Wecht: Ja; dit is my mening.

Donald Purdy: Dr. Wecht, is dit moontlik dat hy beseer was voor hierdie raamwerk, maar nog nie 'n reaksie geopenbaar het nie?

Cyril Wecht: NEE; Ek glo dit nie, gegewe die aard en omvang van sy wonde, die veelheid en die beskadigde gebiede, glo ek dit nie.

Donald Purdy: Dr. Wecht, gegewe die aard van sy wonde, hoeveel is die vroegste wat hy kon kry voordat hy reageer?

Cyril Wecht: Wel, 'n breukdeel van 'n sekonde, weer 'n oneindige klein oomblik. Dit is moontlik dat hy 'n breukdeel van 'n sekonde vroeër geskiet kon word, hoewel ek dit nie glo nie. Hou in gedagte dat ons dit nou moet korreleer met die goewerneur se eie weergawe, en onthou dat hierdie koeël 2.000 voet per sekonde se snelsnelheid beweeg, baie vinniger as die klanksnelheid. Hou asseblief in gedagte dat dit glad nie waarskynlik lyk nie. Ek twyfel of dit moontlik is dat hy reeds getref is. Die paneel (van kundiges wat deur die House Select Committee on Assassinations vergader is), na my beste herinnering, was dit eenparig eens dat daar 'n effense opwaartse trajek was deur die president John F. Kennedy, dit wil sê dat die- kogelwond van ingang op die president se rug, in lyn met die koeëlwond van uitgang voor die president se nek wat 'n reguit lyn trek, het getoon dat die koeël vertikaal effens opwaarts, effens, maar opwaarts beweeg het. Dit is uiters belangrik om twee redes. Een, onder die enkele bullet -teorie - met Oswald as enigste sluipmoordenaar, of iemand anders, in die venster op die sesde verdieping, suidoostelike hoek van die Texas School Book Depository Building, het u die koeël teen 'n afwaartse hoek van ongeveer 20-25 neergedaal grade, so iets, miskien 'n bietjie minder. Ek dink dit is oorspronklik deur die lykskouingspan en die aanvanklike ondersoekers aansienlik meer gepostuleer. Hoe in die wêreld kan 'n koeël uit die venster op die sesde verdieping geskiet word, die president in die rug slaan en tog 'n effense opwaartse rigting hê? Daar was niks om dit te laat verander nie. En dan, met die effens opwaartse rigting, buite die president se nek, het die koeël 'n achtbaanrit met 'n groot duik begin, want dit het dan voortgegaan; onder die enkele bullet -teorie, deur Gov. John Connally teen 'n hoek van 25 grade. Na my wete was daar nog nooit onenigheid tussen die voorstanders en verdedigers van die Warren -kommissie se verslag of die kritici nie, oor die hoek van agteruitgang by John Connally - miskien 'n graad of twee. Ons het die koeël deur die goewerneur op ongeveer 25 grade afwaarts. Hoe gaan 'n koeël wat effens opwaarts beweeg in die president, dan om 25 grade in John Connally afwaarts te beweeg? Dit is wat ek nie kan verstaan ​​nie. My kollegas op die paneel is hiervan bewus. Ons het dit bespreek, en waarna ons telkens terugkom, is: "Wel, ek weet nie hoe die twee mans in verhouding met mekaar was nie." Dit gee my nie om wat agter die snelweg -teken van Stemmons gebeur het nie; daar is geen manier in die wêreld dat hulle dit bymekaar kan sit nie, en ook op die horisontale vlak, die koeël, hou in gedagte, ingeskryf in die president se regterkant, ek stem saam, verlaat in die voorste middellyn van die president se nek, ek stem saam, en ek beweeg daar per definisie, volgens bekende feite, op 'n reguit lyn van ingang na uitgang, van regs na links. En toe die koeël na links beweeg, het dit op een of ander manier 'n skerp hoek gedraai, amper twee voet teruggekom, gestop, 'n tweede draai gemaak en teen Gov. John Connally agter die regterarm ingeklap. regter agterste okselgebied. Die vertikale en horisontale baan van hierdie koeël, 399, onder die enkele koeëlteorie is absoluut onpeilbaar, onverdedigbaar en ongelooflik.

Cyril Wecht: Ja; Ek glo F-246, wat 'n opblaas van die Zapruder-raam 237 is, toon aan dat goewerneur John Connally nou getref is.

Donald Purdy: Dr. Wecht, wat is dit aan sy bewegings wat u tot die gevolgtrekking bring dat hy getref is?

Cyril Wecht: Die liggaam draai, die wange blaas op, daar is 'n merkbare grimas op sy gesig, byvoorbeeld in teenstelling met byvoorbeeld F-245, Z-raam 230, en dit lyk asof daar 'n afwyking van sy hare is. Hierdie kenmerke kan baie dramaties gesien word, ook een raam later, F-247, of Zapruder-raam 238, wat ek u daaraan herinner, net 'n agtiende van 'n tweede interval weg is, en u kan sien hoe die hare beweeg, die draai van die liggaam. Daar is geen twyfel dat die goewerneur nou getref is nie.

Donald Purdy: Dr. Wecht, met verwysing na die JFK-uitstallings F-229, F-272 en F-244, wat die rame is onmiddellik voor en die rame na die teken, het u die feit bespreek dat die mans nie tougestaan ​​het nie. 'n horisontale baan?

Cyril Wecht: Ja. Die paneel was, tot die beste van my herinnering, eenparig saamgestem dat daar 'n effense opwaartse trajek was deur die president John F. en ongelooflik.

Die kledingstukvervaardiger Abraham Zapruder was 'n toeskouer op Dealey Plaza wat die hele opnamesekwensie met sy goedkoop filmkamera vasgevang het. Die tydskrif Life het die film onmiddellik vir 'n ongekende bedrag opgeraap. Alhoewel Life verskeie rame in sy voorbladverhaal oor die Warren Commission -verslag bevat, was die rolprent self nog nooit in die openbaar vertoon nie. (Nie eers lede van die kommissie het dit gesien nie.) Nou het dit opgeduik, met vergunning van La Bell Frankryk.

Die Zapruder -film is verskriklik grafies. Dit wys hoe Kennedy sy keel vasdruk terwyl 'n skoot van agter deur sy nek gaan. Daar is pynlike oomblikke terwyl hy stadig vorentoe sak in die limousine. Dan ontplof sy kop letterlik en stuur 'n bloedmis-stralekrans. Die krag van die hou slaan hom so gewelddadig terug in die kussing in die agterste sitplek dat dit saamgepers word. Hy spring vorentoe terwyl Jackie na hom gryp. Daar is geen twyfel dat hy deur 'n skoot van voor dood is nie. Verdagte Lee Harvey Oswald was agter.

Ek het met die film na Hollywood gehaas om dit deur kundiges te laat ontleed. Hulle het dit as outentiek uitgespreek, waarskynlik 'n tweede of derde generasie kopie. Ek het toe verstaan ​​waarom Life, wat standpunt ingeneem het ter ondersteuning van die Warren-verslag en die weergawe van Gerald Ford bevat oor hoe die gevolgtrekking gekom het, dat die rolprent gesekwestreer was. In werklikheid het 'n anonieme onderskrifskrywer by die tydskrif die kopskootraam beskryf as 'n skoot van voor, en 'n aantal intekenare het afskrifte met die onderskrif ontvang. Maar die persoptrede is vinnig tot 'n geweldige koste gestaak, en die oortredende plaat is gebreek en vervang deur een wie se onderskrif in ooreenstemming was met die amptelike standpunt.

Een van die sentrale persele van Bloedige verraad is dat die Zapruder -film verander is deur lede van die kabaal wat president Kennedy vermoor het, as deel van 'n poging om die plot en die plotters ten minste gedeeltelik te verberg. Hierdie idee het die afgelope jaar toenemend geloofwaardig geword, maar ek moet toegee dat dit 'n idee is wat 'n deel van my heeltemal wil verwerp, want ek verstaan ​​dit nie. Die Zapruder -film soos dit sedert die sewentigerjare bekend was, is oortuigende bewys van 'n voorskieter en dus 'n sameswering. Om by die beweerde verandering aan te dink, vind my kontraproduktief, want ek mis die bos vir die bome.

Soos ek die algemene argument verstaan, is rame uit die film uitgevee om bewyse te verberg dat Kennedy van voor geskiet is, wat natuurlik die eensame moer sou vernietig. Die samesweerders het die oorspronklike film in beslag geneem en verander met behulp van wat in 1963 gesofistikeerde, maar taamlik alledaagse toerusting was. Spore van die vervalsing het onvermydelik agtergebly, maar is jare lank nie weggesteek nie.

Daar is onmiskenbare probleme in die film, soos of die presidensiële limousine tydens die fusillade tot stilstand gekom het. In die konvensionele Z-film is dit duidelik nie so nie, maar talle ooggetuies het 'n eed afgelê wat dit wel gedoen het, of ten minste dat dit vertraag het (ook nie waargeneem nie).

'N Ander kwessie waarop Twyman fokus, is die spoed waarmee die limousinebestuurder William Greer op twee punte in die skietvolgorde sy kop draai. Volgens Twyman is die spoed van hierdie kopdraai 'n fisiese onmoontlikheid, en 'n verdere bewys dat sleutelrame uit die film verwyder is. Daar is verfilmde weergawes van die kopdraai (geen onderwerp kon dit doen soos Greer vermoedelik gedoen het nie) en besprekings van berekeninge wat bedoel was om aan te toon dat dit nie gedoen kon word nie.

Dit is moontlik die kragtigste demonstrasies van Twyman. Maar in hierdie stadium sit ek nog steeds op die heining oor die kwessie van filmverandering. Dit is genoeg om te sê dat dit nie 'n eenvoudige taak is om die bewering te bewys dat daar met die Zapruder -film gepeuter is nie. Gerespekteerde navorsers het bewerings aan beide kante van die vraag gestel; dit is nie 'n probleem wat binnekort opgelos sal word nie - indien ooit.

'N Amerikaanse arbitrasiepaneel het gister 'n prys geplaas op die bekendste tuisfliek ter wêreld toe dit ingestem het om $ 16 miljoen vergoeding toe te ken aan die familie van Abraham Zapruder, wie se film van 26 sekondes van die moord op president Kennedy 'n nasionale oorblyfsel geword het. Prokureurs van die Zapruder -gesin het $ 30 miljoen gevra in ruil daarvoor dat hulle die film aan die nasionale argief oorgegee het, maar hulle het gister se beslissing 'deeglik en bedagsaam' genoem. 'N Meningsverskeurende lid van die arbitrasieraad met drie lede het egter aangevoer dat die toekenning te groot was vir 'n beskadigde strook 8 mm-selluloïde.

Abraham Zapruder, 'n kleredragvervaardiger, het op 22 November 1963 langs die roete van die presidensiële motorfiets deur Dallas gestaan ​​en die gebeurtenis verfilm toe die noodlottige skote klap. Die kleurfilm wys hoe die president na die eerste skoot sy bors gryp voordat sy kop ontbind onder die krag van die tweede koeël.

Net na die sluipmoord verkoop hy die beeldmateriaal vir $ 150 000 aan die tydskrif Time-Life, wat individuele rame publiseer, maar nie toelaat dat die film in sy geheel vertoon word nie. Intussen het dit die ikoniese fokus van die onophoudelike twis geword oor die vraag of die skietery deel uitmaak van 'n sameswering. Time-Life het die film in 1975 vir 'n nominale $ 1 aan die Zapruder-gesin teruggegee.

Skeidsregters is ingeroep toe prokureurs vir die erfgename van die heer Zapruder en die regering nie ooreengekom het oor billike vergoeding nie, na die besluit van die Assassination Records Review Board se uitspraak in 1997 dat die rolprent as die permanente besit van die Amerikaanse volk verklaar moet word.

Regeringskenners het daarop gewys dat selfs 'n oorspronklike manuskrip van 'n toespraak van president Lincoln slegs $ 1,5 miljoen op 'n veiling ingesamel het en dat die VSA nie veel meer vir die film moes betaal nie, veral omdat die Zapruder -familie die outeursreg sou behou.

Die Zapruder -prokureurs het aangevoer dat dit 'n unieke artefak is soos 'n Vincent Van Gogh -skildery of 'n Andy Warhol -afdruk, en dit moet dienooreenkomstig gewaardeer word. Die paneel beslis met 2 stemme vir 1: "Die Zapruder -film is uniek".

Daar was ook interessante verwikkelinge van die misdaadtoneel af, waarvan die belangrikste miskien 'n goeie idee lyk: die beroemde Zapruder-tuisfliek van 26 sekondes van die moord op JFK bevat oorspronklike ongedokterde fotografiese beelde van die sluipmoord. Hierdie verifikasie is nodig geag deur die Assassination Records Review Board, wat deur die kongres geskep is om toesig te hou oor die vrystelling van JFK -rekords, omdat 'n stemparty van JFK -samesweringsteoretici in die negentigerjare begin beweer het dat die film op 'n sluipende manier verander is om bewyse van 'n sameswering te verberg. (Hulle teorie word weerlê, hierdie samesweringsteoretici het die JFK-veld laat vaar vir groener weivelde van 9/11 spekulasie.) Dit wil egter nie sê dat daar nie 'n paar legitieme en ongemaklike vrae oor foto's is wat verband hou met moord nie.

"Die enigste waarskuwing wat ek in die fotografiese rekord het, het betrekking op die JFK -lykskouingsmateriaal," sê Richard Trask, 'n foto -argivaris in Danvers, Massachusetts, wat die grootste versameling JFK -moordbeeld ter wêreld het en twee boeke oor die onderwerp geskryf het. "Dit is 'n gebied wat my altyd laat stilstaan. Wat gebeur het tydens die lykskouing as daar 'n toesmeerdery was of net onbevoegdheid, weet ek nie. Dit is die enigste deel van die JFK-verhaal waaroor ek twyfel. "

Hy moet ook. Die mediese bewyse van die JFK is erger as 'n gemors - dit is 'n gedokumenteerde nasionale skandaal wat wag op behoorlike nuusdekking. Die nuwe getuienis toon bo redelike twyfel dat die fotografiese rekord van Kennedy se lykskouing gepeuter is deur onbekende persone. Die beëdigde getuienis en rekords wat die Assassination Records Review Board in die laat 1990's ontwikkel het, laat geen ander gevolgtrekking toe nie.

Onder die belangrikste onthullings na die Stone in die JFK mediese bewyse:

Lykskouingsfoto's van Kennedy se liggaam ontbreek uit die regeringsargief, lui die beëdigde getuienis van dokters en mediese tegnici wat by die lykskouing betrokke was. Die oorsprong van ander lykskouingsfoto's in die versameling kan nie bepaal word nie.

Twee FBI-agente wat tydens die lykskouing aantekeninge gemaak het, het gedetailleerde beëdigde getuienisse afgelê wat die sogenaamde single bullet-teorie verwerp, wat die amptelike verhaal dra dat Oswald alleen Kennedy vermoor het.

Dr James Humes, die hoofpatoloog by JFK se lykskouing, het onder eed erken dat hy 'n eerste konsep van sy lykskouingsverslag vernietig het. Humes het voorheen slegs erken dat hy sy oorspronklike notas vernietig het.

Dr Gary Aguilar, 'n oogarts in San Francisco wat oor die lykskouing geskryf het, is nadruklik. 'Die mediese getuienis is volgens my 'n duidelike bewys van 'n bedekking,' sê hy. "Die verhaal is so buitengewoon dat dit vir sommige mense, veral in die hoofstroom -media -organisasies, moeilik is om dit reg te kry. Daar is geen twyfel dat daar die naweek baie vreemde dinge aan die president se liggaam gebeur het nie."

Klink dit na 'n paranoïese fantasie? Meer as 'n paar van die mense wat aan die JFK -lykskouing deelgeneem het, het gesweer.

Saundra Kay Spencer was 'n tegnikus by die vloot se fotografiese laboratorium in Washington. Sy het die naweek na Kennedy se dood die JFK -lykskouingsfoto's ontwikkel. Sy het haar eed van geheimhouding vir 34 jaar gehou. Toe sy in 1997 met die ARRB praat, toon Spencer die doeltreffendheid van 'n loopbaanmilitêre vrou. Sy was goed voorbereid met 'n skerp geheue vir die besonderhede van haar betrokkenheid by die wonderlike gebeure van 22-24 November 1963. Haar getuienis, nadat sy al die JFK-lykskouingsfoto's in die Nasionale Argief nagegaan het, was onomwonde. 'Die sienings [van JFK se liggaam] wat ons by die [Naval] Photographic Center gemaak het, is nie ingesluit nie [in die huidige lykskouingsversameling],' het sy gesê. 'Tussen die foto's en die foto's wat ons gemaak het, moes massiewe kosmetiese dinge aan die president se liggaam gedoen word.'

Die FBI -agent Francis O'Neill was teenwoordig tydens die lykskouing en het notas geneem. In 1997 kyk hy ook na die foto's. Met verwysing na 'n lykskouingsfoto wat die wond aan die agterkant van Kennedy se kop toon, het O'Neill gesê: 'Dit lyk asof dit op 'n manier behandel is. Vir my lyk dit asof hierdie foto's was. Dit wil vir my voorkom asof daar 'n meer groot wond was. " O'Neill het beklemtoon dat hy nie gesê het dat die lykskouingsfoto's self gedokter is nie, maar dat die wonde self skoongemaak is voordat die foto geneem is.

James Sibert, nog 'n FBI -agent wat by die lykskouing was, het 'n soortgelyke reaksie op die foto's gehad. 'Ek onthou glad nie so iets tydens die lykskouing nie,' het hy onder eed gesê. "Daar was baie - wel, die wond was meer uitgespreek. En dit lyk asof dit kon gerekonstrueer gewees het of iets, in vergelyking met wat ek onthou."

Waarteen albei mans beswaar gemaak het, was die gebrek aan 'n groot gat in die agterkant van JFK se kop, wat ietwat dui op 'n sogenaamde uitblaaswond wat veroorsaak word deur 'n skoot van voor.

Die afgetrede FBI-agente was veral ontevrede oor die enkele koeëlteorie wat beweer dat een koeël sewe nie-dodelike wonde in Kennedy en [Texas] goewerneur Connally veroorsaak het en grootliks ongeskonde op 'n hospitaal se draagbaar verskyn het.

Hulle het aantekeninge gemaak oor die lykskouing terwyl dr. Humes Kennedy se lyk ondersoek het. Albei het gesê die lykskouings het tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die koeël wat Kennedy in sy rug getref het, nie deur sy liggaam gegaan het nie. Maar die hoofpatoloog Humes het 'n ander mening in sy lykskouingsverslag geneem en geskryf dat die koeël uit Kennedy se keel gekom het en goewerneur Connally getref het. Maar Humes se geloofwaardigheid word ondermyn deur die ontdekking van die ARRB dat hy nie net sy aantekeninge vernietig het nie, maar ook sy eerste konsep van die lykskouingsverslag sonder om ooit die inhoud of selfs die bestaan ​​daarvan te onthul.

Sibert het later aan 'n JFK -navorser van die enkele koeëlteorie gesê: "Dit is magie, nie medisyne nie."


Uitval by uitval: Tribune verminder bladsye met 20 persent, stel vroeë sperdatums

Dick Stolley, die legendariese joernalis wat die Zapruder -film van die moord op president John F. Kennedy vir die tydskrif Life laat verskyn het en wat die tydskrif People begin het, is dood.

Volgens vriende van sy familie is Stolley Woensdag op 92 -jarige ouderdom in 'n hospitaal in Evanston, Illinois, oorlede.

Stolley, 'n redakteur in die Los Angeles -kantoor van Life ten tyde van die sluipmoord, vlieg na Dallas enkele ure nadat Kennedy op 22 November 1963 geskiet is.

Dit was die mees dramatiese oomblik van my 70 jaar joernalistiek, ” Stolley het in 2013 op die 50ste herdenking van die tragedie gesê aan “ Face the Nation ”, met verwysing na sy landing van die ikoniese 8 mm -kamera -opnames wat word die bekendste tuisfliek in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis en die enigste filmrekord van die sluipmoord.

Om die film in die hande te kry, was 'n kombinasie van geluk en vaardige verslaggewing oor gumshoe — en van die oorheersing van Life, destyds 'n groot glans en een van die grootste verkoopblaaie in die land.

'Ek het 'n oproep gekry van 'n Life freelancer in Dallas met die naam Patsy Swank,' onthou Stolley vir Time. 'En die nuus wat sy gekry het, was absoluut opwindend. Sy het gesê dat 'n sakeman 'n 8 mm -kamera na Dealey Plaza geneem het en die sluipmoord afgeneem het. Ek het gesê: 'Wat is sy naam?' Sy het gesê: '[Die verslaggewer wat haar die nuus vertel het] het dit nie uitgespel nie, maar ek sal jou vertel hoe hy dit uitgespreek het. Dit was Zapruder.'”

'Ek het die telefoonboek van Dallas opgetel en letterlik met my vinger langs die Z's gehardloop, en dit het op my uitgespring, die naam is presies soos Patsy dit uitgespreek het. Zapruder, komma, Abraham.”

Stolley het gesê Zapruder het die film na Kodak geneem vir oornagontwikkeling en drie kopieë laat maak. Stolley was die eerste verslaggewer wat Zapruder gekontak het, maar nie die enigste nie. Zapruder het hom aangesê om die volgende oggend om 09:00 na sy huis te kom. Stolley het gesê hy het om 08:00 opgedaag

Terwyl die ander verslaggewers op die deur klop en eis om die film te sien, was Dick reeds in sy huis, sê Hal Wingo, wat saam met Stolley at Life gewerk het en hom later gehelp het om People as sy tweede werknemer te begin.

Die kamera van Abraham Zapruder word gesien tydens 'n voorsmakie van 'n uitstalling gewy aan die vermoorde president John F. Kennedy in die Newseum op 11 April 2013 in Washington, DC. AFP via Getty Images

Toe hy aankom, was die geheime diens daar en het twee van die afskrifte geneem. Ander verslaggewers het Zapruder ook ingehaal. Stolley het gesê dat hy altyd gewonder het waarom die geheime diens nie al die afskrifte gekonfiskeer het nie. Hy het Zapruder $ 150,000 aangebied vir die spoel en#8212 wat in 'n jaarlikse paaiement van $ 25,000 oor 'n tydperk van ses jaar uitbetaal moet word.

Zapruder het gesê dat hulle hoër aanbiedings het, maar hulle het Life gegee omdat hy gesê het dat Dick die mees beleefde was en hy het gevoel dat Dick so sou optree, dan sou Life die film goed versorg, ” volgens Wingo.

Zapruder het 486 rame oor 26,6 sekondes geneem en nadat hulle die ooreenkoms gesluit het, is die foto's raam vir raam in Life uitgevoer.

"Wat die openbare rekord betref, dink ek dit is baie gelukkig dat ek mnr. Zapruder gevind het," het Stolley gesê.

Zapruder het daarop aangedring dat raam 313 —, wat die regterkant van die president se kop in rooi uitbeeld, uit die tweede sluipskutterskoot — uit die oorspronklike tydskriflopies weggelaat word.

Stolley glo lewenslank dat Lee Harvey Oswald die enigste gewapende man was.

President John F. Kennedy se motorcade in Dallas, Texas, voor sy sluipmoord op 22 November 1963. AP Photo/PRNewsFoto/Newseum, File

'Ek dink die film het die Amerikaanse bevolking help indruk dat hy dood is,' sê Stolley. '' N Stilbeeld sou dit nie gedoen het nie. Amerika moes dit alles opneem. ”

Stolley is uiteindelik bevorder tot redakteur van Life en het daarna People in 1974 bekendgestel, en het daarna gedien as redaksionele direkteur van Time, destyds die belangrikste uitgewer in die VSA.


Die inwoner van Pekin, wat die Zapruder -film van die moord op JFK beroemd gekry het, is op 92 oorlede

PEKIN & mdash Danksy 'n beleefde Pekin -opvoeding het die joernalis Dick Stolley daarin geslaag om 'n kopie van die bekendste tuisfilm in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis op te spoor: die Zapruder -film van die moord op John F. Kennedy.

Stolley, 92, died last week in Evanston with his family by his side, according to People magazine, for which he served as founding managing editor in 1974. His storied career, which began in his teens in Pekin, included stints at the Chicago Sun-Times and Time magazine, and he eventually became editorial director across all Time Inc. magazines before retiring in 2014.

But the highlight of his reporting career came in the wake of the Kennedy's slaying, captured by dressmaker Abraham Zapruder. Stolley was not only the first journalist to contact Zapruder he also was the most patient and polite, manners Stolley credited to his childhood in Pekin.

"In terms of public record, I think it is very fortunate I found Mr. Zapruder,&rdquo Stolley told the Journal Star in 2013, near the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death.

Born in Pekin to a factory worker father and an English teacher mother, Stolley knew by age 12 he would become a journalist, according to People. He went from editing the newspaper at Pekin High School to becoming a teenage sports editor of the Pekin Daily Times.

After high school, he joined the Navy before graduating from Northwestern University with a master's degree in journalism in 1953, according to the Washington Post. He eventually was hired by Life magazine, moving up to chief of its Los Angeles bureau by 1963. On that Nov. 22, he was in the office when news broke that Kennedy had been shot. Stolley, another reporter and two photographers jumped on the next plane to Dallas.

They landed as Air Force One was taking off for Washington, carrying Kennedy's body and Lyndon Johnson, about to be sworn in as the new president. Ongeveer 18:00. at Life's Dallas bureau, Stolley got a tip that a Dallas businessman named Abraham Zapruder had filmed the assassination on his home movie camera.

Stolley picked up a phone book and found Zapruder's home number. He called the number every 15 minutes for the next six hours, until a weary voice answered.

Stolley identified himself, asking, &ldquoMr. Zapruder, am I the first reporter to call you?&rdquo Zapruder said yes, then confirmed that he had captured the assassination on film, which he already had gotten developed. Excited, Stolley asked if he could come by to see the film.

Though sensing the scoop of a lifetime, Stolley did not get pushy. He remained respectful, as he had been taught as a boy in Pekin.

As Stolley later said to the Journal Star of Zapruder, "He was emotionally and physically exhausted at that point. I didn&rsquot press. I mean, sometimes in this business, you know, you have to press and sometimes there&rsquos a sixth sense that tells you don&rsquot press. Smartest decision I ever made."

With Stolley calm and quiet, Zapruder broke the phone silence by saying, "Come to my office at 9 in the morning.&rdquo

Stolley arrived an hour early, to beat any other reporters getting wind of the situation. He got there at the same time as three Secret Service agents.

For the four visitors, Zapruder played his 8 mm film on rickety, old projector. The room was silent, except for the tick-tick-tick sound of the projector, as they watched the grim imagery: the motorcade curving around Dealey Plaza with Kennedy waving from the presidential limousine before grasping his throat at the first shot, then Texas Gov. John Connally howling in pain from a bullet wound.

"And then comes this hideous head shot where the whole right side of (Kennedy's) head just explodes up into the air and the spray of blood and bone," Stolley recounted to the Journal Star. " And at that moment everyone in the room just &mdash as if we had been punched in the gut &mdash everybody, Secret Service and me, just went, &ldquo'Unnh!'

"It was an absolute, natural, uncontrollable impulse at seeing that wound."

After watching the rest of the film, the Secret Service agents seized two of Zapruder's three copies, then left. Other reporters had arrived, so Zapruder showed them the film. Following the final frame, Zapruder told the roomful of reporters, &ldquoWell, now. I know you&rsquore interested in obtaining rights to this film, but Mr. Stolley was the first reporter to contact me, so I&rsquom going to talk to him first.&rdquo

As the other reporters went ballistic, Zapruder and Stolley slipped into his office and locked the door. Stolley thought to himself, &ldquoI&rsquom not going to leave this office without that film. I don&rsquot care what I have to do.&rdquo

Stolley said, "Mr. Zapruder, that is a truly fascinating piece of film&rdquo &mdash then offered $5,000. As they chatted amicably over the price, the other reporters shouted at Zapruder and banged on the door. Stolley, true to his Pekin rearing, stayed kind and calm, raising the offer to $50,000.

Zapruder, visibly disturbed by the clamor on the other side of the door, said, "Let&rsquos do it.&rdquo

Stolley walked over to the office typewriter and banged out a six-line contract for Life's print rights. After they signed the document, Zapruder handed over the other copy of the film. Stolley ducked out a back door, out of sight of his irate competitors.

"Poor Mr. Zapruder had to go back and face those enraged reporters outside his office," Stolley later said.

The following day, Life agreed to pay Zapruder $150,000 for all rights to the film. Zapruder, who would have nightmares about the film and shirk from publicity, died of stomach cancer in 1970.

In 1975, Life sold the film back to his family for $1. In 1999, the federal government bought the film from the family for $16 million.

But even decades later, Stolley never understood one aspect of that post-assassination morning. Why didn&rsquot the Secret Service agents confiscate all three copies of the film? Why relinquish control of any evidence regarding the investigation, less than a day after a president&rsquos murder?

&ldquoThat&rsquos a good question,&rdquo Stolley told the Journal Star. &ldquoIt surprised me that these government officials didn&rsquot grab it.&rdquo

Many of the film's images &mdash Zapruder had captured 486 frames over 26.6 seconds &mdash ran frame-by-frame in Life. To the Journal Star, Stolley later acknowledged that the film&rsquos excruciating detail exacerbated nationwide horror. But he says the explicitness was invaluable in underscoring the stark truth of the slaying.

&ldquoI think the film helped impress upon the American people that he was dead,&rdquo Stolley said.


Richard Stolley, Founding Editor of People Magazine, Dies at 92

He also scored a major journalistic coup by securing the rights to the Zapruder film of John F. Kennedy’s assassination for Life magazine.

Richard B. Stolley, the founding editor of People magazine, which changed the course of American publishing with its personality-driven approach to journalism and which has long been one of the most successful magazines in the nation’s history, died on June 16 at a hospital in Evanston, Ill. He was 92.

The cause was heart failure, his family said.

Over six decades with the Time Inc. media empire, Mr. Stolley was a prominent writer and editor at Life magazine, where he covered the civil rights movement in the South and the space race, among other major stories.

While at Life he scored one of the great coups in journalism, acquiring for his magazine the rights to the Zapruder film of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. The 8-mm footage of the Kennedy motorcade — one of the earliest instances of a citizen capturing images of an extraordinary event — was once called the most important 26 seconds in celluloid history.

Mr. Stolley rose through the ranks at Life and was assistant managing editor when its last weekly issue was published in 1972. He then went to Time Inc.’s development group to help dream up new magazines. One day a call came from Andrew Heiskell, chairman of the company, who said that his wife, Marian Sulzberger Heiskell, a member of the family that controls The New York Times Company, had suggested a new magazine that would focus on personalities. Mr. Heiskell suggested spinning off the “People” section of Time magazine into its own publication.

When a test issue rolled off the presses, with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton on the cover, it was an instant hit. Making its official debut in March 1974 with a cover photo of Mia Farrow, who was starring in the movie “The Great Gatsby,” People turned a profit after just 18 months and proved itself a cash cow.

In Mr. Stolley’s first four years, its circulation soared to 2.2 million, with a “pass along” readership of almost 14 million, which People said was the highest in the country.

To Mr. Stolley, the magazine’s mission was clear — to write about ordinary people doing extraordinary things and extraordinary people doing ordinary things, but never about ordinary people doing ordinary things.

The inaugural issue included interviews with the wives of soldiers missing in action in Vietnam as well as features on Lee Harvey Oswald’s widow (“Finally at peace with herself”) and Gloria Vanderbilt (“A fourth marriage that really works”).

“I think the climate in the country was absolutely right for this type of magazine,” Mr. Stolley said in 1978 in an interview with his hometown newspaper then, Greenwich Time, in Connecticut.

He said he believed that by the 1970s, the interests of readers of mass magazines had shifted away from the political turmoil of the 1960s and toward personalities. Still, Mr. Stolley said, he was never sure whether People had spawned personality-driven journalism or whether it had tapped into something already in the zeitgeist.

Either way, the magazine focused relentlessly on humans, not issues or trends. Mr. Stolley had rules about covers, which had to grab readers at the newsstand in an instant.

“He said that pretty sells better than ugly, young sells better than old, movies sell better than TV, TV sells better than sports and anything sells better than politics,” Hal Wingo, his longtime colleague at both Life and People, said in a phone interview.

Although immediately popular with readers, People was dismissed by some journalists, including some at Time Inc., as a celebrity gossip sheet, Mr. Wingo said. That prompted Mr. Stolley to break his own rules about covers. To show that the magazine wasn’t just a showcase for celebrities, the second cover featured Martha Mitchell, the chatty wife of former Attorney General John N. Mitchell, who was embroiled in the Watergate scandal. The third featured the oil tycoon J. Paul Getty.

Much of the early going was trial and error. One of his biggest mistakes, Mr. Stolley often said, was not putting Elvis Presley on the cover when he died in 1977 at 42. Mr. Wingo said it had not occured to them because the magazine had never featured a dead person before.


JFK Assassination: How LIFE Brought the Zapruder Film to Light

Film still from Abraham Zapruder’s home movie of JFK’s assassination in Dallas, Nov. 22, 1963.

Zapruder Film © 1967 (renewed 1995) The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza

Written By: Ben Cosgrove

It’s unlikely that any 26 seconds of celluloid have ever been discussed and dissected as thoroughly as those captured by a 58-year-old amateur-film buff named Abraham Zapruder on the day John F. Kennedy was shot in Dallas—in a movie known ever after as “the Zapruder film.” The jittery color sequence showing JFK’s motorcade moving through the sunlit Dallas streets, leading up to the shocking instant when a rifle bullet slams into the president’s head, remains one of the 20th century’s indispensable historical records.

It was LIFE magazine editor Richard Stolley who tracked down Zapruder. Stolley’s purchasing of Zapruder’s home movie for LIFE had a profound impact on the magazine, on Zapruder, on Stolley himself, and most lastingly on the nation. Having flown in from Los Angeles within hours of the murder, Stolley was in his hotel in Dallas that afternoon, just hours after the president was shot. “I got a phone call from a LIFE freelancer in Dallas named Patsy Swank,” Stolley told TIME producer Vaughn Wallace several years ago, “and the news she had was absolutely electrifying. She said that a businessman had taken an eight-millimeter camera out to Dealey Plaza and photographed the assassination. I said, ‘What’s his name?’ She said, ‘[The reporter who told her the news] didn’t spell it out, but I’ll tell you how he pronounced it. It was Zapruder.’

“I picked up the Dallas phone book and literally ran my finger down the Z’s, and it jumped out at me the name spelled exactly the way Patsy had pronounced it. Zapruder, comma, Abraham.”

The rest is history: fraught, complex, riveting, unsettled history

Film still from Abraham Zapruder’s home movie of JFK’s assassination in Dallas, Nov. 22, 1963.

Zapruder Film © 1967 (renewed 1995) The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza


Abraham Zapruder - History

Abraham Zapruder’s name became quite familiar to those of us who were old enough to remember the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Zapruder had been on the street at the exact time the attack occurred. He and his employees had stopped work to enjoy the presidential parade and had been filming the event with his personal home movie camera.

Zapruder had been born in Kovel, Volyns’ka, Russia (Ukraine) in 1905 to Israel and Anna Zapruder. He had emigrated to the United States when he was a teenager. Arriving in New York City, he lived in the borough of Brooklyn for a number of years, finding work as a pattern maker in the garment business. He married Lillian Shapovnick in 1933 and the couple had two children. By the early 1940s, he had moved to Dallas, Texas, essentially working in the same field.

After moving to Texas, Zapruder started (or co-founded) his own company called Jennifer Juniors, Inc. and his Dallas office was located in what was known as the Dal-Tex Building at 501 Elm Street, which is located directly across Houston Street from the Texas School Book Depository where Lee Harvey Oswald is alleged to have fired the fatal shots that killed President Kennedy and wounded Texas Governor John Connally.

(Image credit: Replica of Zapruder’s camera from the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas, TX)

When he left for work that morning, Zapruder had inadvertently forgotten his camera, a Bell and Howell Director Series Model 414 Zoomatic 8-MM unit, but one of his employees had gone to his home and picked it up for him. The office closed down in anticipation of the downtown parade. From the place where he was standing, he was able to get a good view of the motorcade and unexpectedly caught the entire assassination sequence. He actually witnessed the shot or shots that struck President Kennedy while looking through the viewfinder of his camera. Zapruder is believed to have been standing on the “grassy knoll” on the north side of Elm Street in position to be able to see the fronts of the cars in the motorcade after they made the left turn from Houston Street to Elm Street.

After hearing the gunfire, he kept the camera rolling until the motorcade disappeared under the railroad overpass. He realized the gravity of the situation, although confirmation of the President’s death was not broadcast for another half hour to an hour.

(Image credit: Findagrave.com)

Zapruder was quickly located and contacted by local and national police. His film was developed later that day and copies were made for investigators. He later received many offers for rights to publish his images, and he reportedly sold the rights to Lewe magazine for $150,000, out of which he is known to have generously donated $25,000 to the family of the slain Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippett. The sum was paid out in six annual installments and the first installment went to the Tippett family.

Since then, his footage has been widely distributed and was a key piece of evidence in the lengthy government investigation by the Warren Commission that followed the assassination.

Abraham Zapruder passed away in 1970 from complications of stomach cancer. He is interred at Emanu-El Cemetery in Dallas, Texas along with other members of his family. Lewe magazine conveyed the rights back to the family for $1 in 1975. The camera and original film footage was donated to the National Archives and Records Administration.

The JFK Act, officially known as the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, was passed by the United States Congress. Among other provisions, the Act created a collection to house all the artifacts and materials connected to the assassination and the investigation thereof. The Act also created the Assassination Records Review Board, one of the responsibilities of which was to determine which documents might be released and when they might be released. It has been reported that the Zapruder family was awarded a sum in the millions for their rights to the original film footage. The family subsequently donated their collection of images to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, Texas, along with a first-generation copy of the footage and the associated copyrights. We intentionally did not post references to any of the many possible links to the Zapruder film but they can be easily found on the internet.

The Sixth Floor Museum is housed at the former location of the five story Southern Rock Island Plow Company, built in 1898. That particular structure burned after a fire caused by a lightening strike about three years later and the current seven story structure was built on its foundation. Over the next six decades, it was leased and used as the headquarters first for an air conditioning business and later a food distribution company. In 1963, it was leased by the Texas School Book Depository for about the next ten years. Dallas County acquired the building in 1977, using it for County business with the upper floors mostly remaining vacant. The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza opened in 1989. The sixth and seventh floors are devoted to the life of President Kennedy and the story of the 1963 assassination. Reportedly, at least about 350,000 individuals visit the museum each year.


The Zapruder Film: A New Book Reveals the Untold Story of the Man Who Recorded JFK’s Assassination

Abraham Zapruder recorded a tragic moment in history when he captured President John F. Kennedy‘s assassination in full color on Nov. 22, 1963.

Fifty-three years later, granddaughter Alexandra Zapruder adds a fresh narrative to an old tragedy with the release of Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the Zapruder Film. The book, out last month, delves into the story of her grandfather, who was traumatized after making a home movie that serves as the only complete record of Kennedy’s death. Twenty-Six Seconds also fleshes out the complex situation in which the Zapruder family found itself after the assassination.

“We’re living in a time where we need to have complicated answers to complicated questions. is my own inquiry into our family legacy and the life of the film,” Alexandra Zapruder tells PEOPLE. “The way that we handled the film shaped the way that the film reached the public and that shaped the way that people thought about the assassination.”

The history of the film is a complicated one.

Zapruder writes that immediately after the assassination, duplicates of the footage went to the federal government. The original film was soon sold to LEWE magazine for $150,000, and was eventually used as evidence in the Warren Commission’s investigation of JFK’s death. Many years later, the Zapruder family once again owned the film, only to face criticism, conspiracy theories and lawsuits.

Despite the hefty sum, for Abraham Zapruder the film represented loss.

According to the book, the Zapruders had great love for the Kennedy family. Zapruder’s son Henry (the author’s father) had just been assigned a position in the Justice Department under the Kennedy Administration. So when Abraham Zapruder unintentionally filmed Kennedy’s death as the commander in chief rode with first lady Jacqueline in the presidential limo in Dallas, Zapruder’s granddaughter writes that he could remember nothing afterwards “except for his own anguished screams.”

“ loved Kennedy. He was a middle-aged man at that point, an immigrant, born in Russia, and he certainly voted for Kennedy and was truly devoted to Kennedy and the family,” says Dick Stolley, the LEWE editor (and future founding editor of PEOPLE magazine) who purchased the film from Zapruder. “For Kennedy to be killed, and even worse, for literally to witness the murder through the rangefinder on his camera, was something, quite frankly, he never recovered from.”

Stolley described sitting in the room when Zapruder first showed the film to him and two Secret Service agents. (One of Zapruder’s first instincts was to get the film to government authorities.)

“We all knew what had happened, but we had no idea what it looked like,” says Stolley. “The three of us were standing and when frame 313 – when his brain sprays up into the air – all of us went ‘ugh!’ It was amazing, as if we’d all been punched in the stomach simultaneously. I’ve never seen anything like that on film or in real life.”

Not only was Zapruder reeling from what he’d filmed, the book describes a man plagued by reporters who wanted the film for their news organizations. As a result, the offer Stolley made on behalf of LEWE magazine was a “safe harbor in a sea of sharks,” Alexandra Zapruder writes.

“ very worried that would be exploited or used in a way that he would find tasteless and awful if it fell into the wrong hands,” says Stolley. “You could see it — this was a man in absolute torment.”

Since federal agents failed to confiscate the original film after they made duplicates, Alexandra Zapruder writes her grandfather felt it was his responsibility to protect the public, especially because people weren’t used to such violent images.

“He knew that the media was going to want to have it and that the public was going to want to see it. There was an inherent conflict between that and his sense that he should respect President Kennedy and protect Mrs. Kennedy from this horrible thing being sensationalized,” she says. “I think the sale to LEWE magazine really represented his best compromise.”

After the sale to LEWE, her grandfather was praised for donating $25,000 to the family of the police officer who was killed by JFK’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. But, according to Stolley, LEWE was later criticized for limiting the public’s access to the film (private ownership and the damage of original frames also inspired conspiracy theories). According to Twenty-Six Seconds, the Zapruder family was also hit with criticism when they later reclaimed rights to the film – even more so after the $16 million sale to the government.

“I understand why people are critical about the money, but everyone in our family would have much preferred that the president hadn’t been killed, and if he had been, that it hadn’t been our grandfather who took the film,” says Zapruder.

While she didn’t write the book to create sympathy for her family, she highlighted the sense of responsibility her father later faced when regulating use of the film. Like his father, Henry Zapruder feared the violent images would be tossed about carelessly for public consumption.

“In my view, thank God it fell to him because he was such a responsible person,” she says, “and he was smart enough to understand what the issues were.”

Beyond the legacy of the film that’s been inherited by her family, Zapruder also touches on the most elemental truths found in those 26 seconds — the human story that makes the film so hard to watch.

“ is the visual representation of what we all know about the fragility of human life, that we don’t want to know … life can come to an end in an instant,” she says. “The fact that it happened to the most beautiful couple in the world, the most powerful couple in the world, the Kennedys, adds to the pathos. But if you separate from that you just see a man and a woman riding in the car on a sunny day. And then, suddenly, he’s dead.”

“That is something that is true about the world that we live in,” she adds. “Everything is fragile and everything can be taken away.”


Twenty-Six Seconds : A Personal History of the Zapruder Film

Abraham Zapruder didn't know when he ran home to grab his video camera on November 22, 1963 that this single spontaneous decision would change his family's life for generations to come. Originally intended as a home movie of President Kennedy's motorcade, Zapruder's film of the JFK assassination is now shown in every American history class, included in Jeopardy and Trivial Pursuit questions, and referenced in novels and films. It is the most famous example of citizen journalism, a precursor to the iconic images of our time, such as the Challenger explosion, the Rodney King beating, and the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers. But few know the complicated legacy of the film itself.

Now Abraham's granddaughter, Alexandra Zapruder, is ready to tell the complete story for the first time. With the help of the Zapruder family's exclusive records, memories, and documents, Zapruder tracks the film's torturous journey through history, all while American society undergoes its own transformation, and a new media-driven consumer culture challenges traditional ideas of privacy, ownership, journalism, and knowledge.

Part biography, part family history, and part historical narrative, Zapruder demonstrates how one man's unwitting moment in the spotlight shifted the way politics, culture, and media intersect, bringing about the larger social questions that define our age.


Review of Alexandra Zapruder’s “Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the Zapruder Film”

John McAdams is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University and webmaster of the Kennedy Assassination Home Page. He received his doctorate from Harvard University in 1981.

In writing Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the Zapruder Film, Alexandra Zapruder is a woman on a mission. She has written to defend her family’s honor, and specifically the honor of her grandfather, Abraham Zapruder who shot the iconic film of John Kennedy’s assassination in Dealey Plaza, and her father Henry Zapruder, who for two decades controlled the film on behalf on Zapruder’s heirs.

Ms. Zapruder, and indeed the entire family, has been stung by claims that they were greedy, profiteering from an historical record that should have been the common property of all Americans, and enabling or being complicit in withholding from public scrutiny a key piece of evidence in what has been labelled (in the clichéd but appropriate phrase) the “crime of the century.”

So she is biased. But she is supposed to be biased. In would be, in fact, mildly scandalous if she did not want to defend her father, and a grandfather whom she did not know (due to his early death) but “knew” as a loving, caring, good natured family man from stories told by family members.

But biased or not, she makes a strong case – a really decisive, undeniable case – that her family has struggled to deal responsibly with both the physical artifact (the camera original film), and the intellectual property (the rights to use the images).

Exhibit A of her case is the fact that Abraham Zapruder, shattered and traumatized on the day of the assassination, refused to deal with media people wanting to buy the film, and insisted on first getting it into the hands of Federal authorities.

Then, on the morning after the assassination, an aggressive mob of media representatives was gathered at his business (dress company Jennifer Juniors) wanting to buy the film. He did not auction it to the highest bidder. Rather, he chose to deal, one on one, with Richard Stolley of LIFE Magazine. In 1963, LEWE was the epitome of mainstream media respectability, and Zapruder was concerned that the film be used “responsibly.” Abe Zapruder told several family members (and also Stolley) of a dream he had of a tawdry display of his film in a Times Square movie house. He wanted to avoid any such thing. Indeed, when shortly after the sale of the print rights, Zapruder sold LEWE the movie rights to the film, he demanded a contract clause requiring that the magazine “present the film in a manner consonant with good taste and dignity.” ek

In the Hands of Life Magazine

Dus LEWE had a journalistic coup, and possessed what theoretically was a vastly valuable piece of property. In fact, it turned out to be one of history’s great hot potatoes.

Zapruder is a good historian, and she has (so far as this writer can tell) largely exhausted the primary sources on any issue she treats. Thus she has a very detailed account of the internal deliberations among LEWE executives about the use of the film. This is not always scintillating reading. But within the tedium is a clear message: dealing with the film was a nettlesome proposition, confronting those executives with tough decisions. Should frame 313, showing the gory explosion of Kennedy’s head, be published? Who should be allowed to use the film (a 1966 request from CBS was particularly troublesome)? Could LEWE restrict viewing of copies available via government channels (in the National Archives)? How to explain the embarrassing fact that the LEWE lab had mangled and ruined a few frames of the film? How should LEWE deal with bootlegged copies? Unauthorized showings of such copies were becoming more and more common, climaxing with a showing on “Good Night America” on ABC. The hassles did not wind down over the years, but rather seemed to ramp up.

During this time, Abe Zapruder had several contacts with people at LEWE, expressing concern about possible copyright violations, or that the film might be used in a way that was not “respectful.” ii Why would he care, since he had already gotten his money? Quite clearly, his concern with “good taste and dignity” in the use of his film was genuine.

So, apparently, was the concern on the part of LEWE. As Ms. Zapruder notes: “LIFE was really in a bind. There seemed to be no way to use the film in a tasteful way, and one memo after the other confirms it was the fundamental conflict of sitting on an incredibly valuable piece of property that could not be used without making too many ethical compromises that led LIFE to decide to give it away.”

Finally, in 1975, LEWE sold the film to the Zapruder estate for $1.

Back in the Hands of the Zapruders

Thus Ms. Zapruder’s father Henry became the person “who handled the film for twenty-five years and who bore the primary emotional, intellectual, and logistical responsibility for it.” iii

If owning the film was vexing for LIFE, it was at least equally troublesome for Henry Zapruder. He was, first of all, deluged with requests for copies of the film and for use of the images. A Harvard educated tax lawyer, he had other things in his life to attend to. The Zapruder estate did make some money: for networks or major film producers the usage fee could range up to $20,000 to $30,000. Was this greedy? Mega corporations or TV production companies with six and seven figure budgets for some JFK related project would be greedy to expect to use this vastly valuable piece of intellectual property for nominal fees.

Further, there was also a massive number of requests from ordinary citizens for personal copies or small-potatoes uses. Henry Zapruder charged nothing for nonprofit, teaching, research or study uses. Sometimes these uses required paying a fee to the National Archives for reproduction of the film, and sometimes Henry Zapruder paid the reproduction cost from estate funds if the requester could not afford them. iv

But with opportunities to make money came considerable vilification. Journalist Jerry Urban noted: “While the footage is under copyright protection, some believe profiteering from the historical film made by Abraham Zapruder Nov. 22, 1963 is wrong and that this home movie should be in the public domain.” v

And professor and assassination scholar David Wrone claimed: “You shouldn’t be able to copyright something like that. It should be in the public domain, just like the crucifixion of Jesus. It’s immoral, socially speaking.” vi

And lawyer James Lesar went to court to attempt to nullify the Zapruder family’s copyright. vii

Ms. Zapruder tells of how she “heard my family’s motives and morality casually critiqued on NPR and by idols of mine like Doris Kerns Goodwin.” viii She admits that, as the result of all this controversy, members of her family had developed a “bunker mentality,” although she concedes that was unnecessary, since she found most people “kind, generous and encouraging.” ix

Finally, in the 1990s, the issues were resolved with the Zapruder family donating the rights to use the film to the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, and government taking the physical film, paying the Zapruders (after arbitration) $16 million dollars. And thus the long ordeal of the Zapruder family’s control of the iconic artifact ended.

Neither conspiracists, looking for evidence of a plot to kill Kennedy, nor lone gunman theorists, looking for a debunking of such theories, will find much here. Ms. Zapruder does deal somewhat briefly with the theory of Zapruder film fakery, relying heavily on the excellent scholarship of Richard Trask.

There is much more to the book. Including the uses 1970s avant–garde filmmakers made of the movie and the process by which an arbitration panel assessed the value of the camera original film – how do you value something that is utterly unique?

But the part of the book that will be most widely appealing is the chronicle of the Zapruder family. Abraham Zapruder, as a Jewish child in the Ukraine, endured severe poverty, and had to witness his brother Morris being dragged off of a train and killed in an anti-Semitic hate crime. x In pogrom-ridden Eastern Europe, such things were utterly routine. Gangs could roam the countryside, assaulting, murdering and raping Jews at will. This traumatized young Abraham.

Things took a sharp turn for the better when Abe, his mother Chana and his siblings made it to New York, to which his father had migrated years earlier. They prospered there, with Abraham entering the needle trades, eventually being able to afford natty clothes and vacations in the Catskills. He met and married his wife Lillian, and they honeymooned in Niagara Falls.

In 1940, Abraham and Lillian and their two children (Henry and Myrna) moved to Dallas, and after a stint with a women’s apparel firm, and one unsuccessful attempt to start his own company, Abe started Jennifer Juniors. The family prospered. Myrna explained that “It was a small city and all the Jewish community knew each other and it was a wonderful, wonderful place to live.” xi Abraham, like the vast majority of Jews, was a staunch Democrat, but unlike a fair number of Jews, was not at all attracted to socialism or communism. Like immigrants generally, he was intensely patriotic. He, and his family, loved John Kennedy.

The family, in fact, embraced their identity as Texans, investing in oil, and also a small herd of cattle. Abe would sometimes dress in cowboy boots and wear a ten-gallon hat, for which his family called him “Abe the Cowboy.” xii A New York Jew impersonating a Texas cowboy might seem mildly humorous, until one notices how hearteningly benign this situation was. A Jewish kid who had survived starvation and anti-Semitic violence in the Ukraine was now a man who was prosperous, safe, and part of a secure Jewish community in Dallas, Texas, USA.

But this was shattered on November 22, 1963, as he watched John Kennedy shot “like a dog” (his own words) on Elm Street. He did not believe things like this happened in America. It must have resonated with his early traumas and brought back the emotions attached to the violence and lawlessness he had escaped. The experience haunted him for the rest of his life.

Citations are to the uncorrected page proofs.

x P. 60. Zapruder, always scrupulous in her use of sources, explains that the witness testimony of her grandfather’s account of this event is not entirely consistent. But the weight of the evidence (including clear evidence that Morris died), support this version.


The Zapruder Film: A New Book Reveals the Untold Story of the Man Who Recorded JFK's Assassination

Abraham Zapruder recorded a tragic moment in history when he captured President John F. Kennedy‘s assassination in full color on Nov. 22, 1963.

Fifty-three years later, granddaughter Alexandra Zapruder adds a fresh narrative to an old tragedy with the release of Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the Zapruder Film. The book, out last month, delves into the story of her grandfather, who was traumatized after making a home movie that serves as the only complete record of Kennedy’s death. Twenty-Six Seconds also fleshes out the complex situation in which the Zapruder family found itself after the assassination.

“We’re living in a time where we need to have complicated answers to complicated questions. [The book] is my own inquiry into our family legacy and the life of the film,” Alexandra Zapruder tells PEOPLE. “The way that we handled the film shaped the way that the film reached the public and that shaped the way that people thought about the assassination.”

The history of the film is a complicated one.

Zapruder writes that immediately after the assassination, duplicates of the footage went to the federal government. The original film was soon sold to LEWE magazine for $150,000, and was eventually used as evidence in the Warren Commission’s investigation of JFK’s death. Many years later, the Zapruder family once again owned the film, only to face criticism, conspiracy theories and lawsuits.

Despite the hefty sum, for Abraham Zapruder the film represented loss.

According to the book, the Zapruders had great love for the Kennedy family. Zapruder’s son Henry (the author’s father) had just been assigned a position in the Justice Department under the Kennedy Administration. So when Abraham Zapruder unintentionally filmed Kennedy’s death as the commander in chief rode with first lady Jacqueline in the presidential limo in Dallas, Zapruder’s granddaughter writes that he could remember nothing afterwards 𠇎xcept for his own anguished screams.”

“[Zapruder] loved Kennedy. He was a middle-aged man at that point, an immigrant, born in Russia, and he certainly voted for Kennedy and was truly devoted to Kennedy and the family,” says Dick Stolley, the LEWE editor (and future founding editor of PEOPLE magazine) who purchased the film from Zapruder. 𠇏or Kennedy to be killed, and even worse, for [Zapruder] literally to witness the murder through the rangefinder on his camera, was something, quite frankly, he never recovered from.”

Stolley described sitting in the room when Zapruder first showed the film to him and two Secret Service agents. (One of Zapruder’s first instincts was to get the film to government authorities.)

“We all knew what had happened, but we had no idea what it looked like,” says Stolley. “The three of us were standing and when frame 313 [played] – when his brain sprays up into the air – all of us went ‘ugh!’ It was amazing, as if we𠆝 all been punched in the stomach simultaneously. I’ve never seen anything like that on film or in real life.”

Not only was Zapruder reeling from what he𠆝 filmed, the book describes a man plagued by reporters who wanted the film for their news organizations. As a result, the offer Stolley made on behalf of LEWE magazine was a “safe harbor in a sea of sharks,” Alexandra Zapruder writes.

“[Zapruder was] very worried that [the film] would be exploited or used in a way that he would find tasteless and awful if it fell into the wrong hands,” says Stolley. “You could see it — this was a man in absolute torment.”

Since federal agents failed to confiscate the original film after they made duplicates, Alexandra Zapruder writes her grandfather felt it was his responsibility to protect the public, especially because people weren’t used to such violent images.

“He knew that the media was going to want to have it and that the public was going to want to see it. There was an inherent conflict between that and his sense that he should respect President Kennedy and protect Mrs. Kennedy from this horrible thing being sensationalized,” she says. “I think the sale to LEWE magazine really represented his best compromise.”

After the sale to LEWE, her grandfather was praised for donating $25,000 to the family of the police officer who was killed by JFK’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. But, according to Stolley, LEWE was later criticized for limiting the public’s access to the film (private ownership and the damage of original frames also inspired conspiracy theories). According to Twenty-Six Seconds, the Zapruder family was also hit with criticism when they later reclaimed rights to the film – even more so after the $16 million sale to the government.

“I understand why people are critical about the money, but everyone in our family would have much preferred that the president hadn’t been killed, and if he had been, that it hadn’t been our grandfather who took the film,” says Zapruder.

RELATED VIDEO: Story Behind the Story: Jackie Kennedy and JFK’s Legacy

While she didn’t write the book to create sympathy for her family, she highlighted the sense of responsibility her father later faced when regulating use of the film. Like his father, Henry Zapruder feared the violent images would be tossed about carelessly for public consumption.

“In my view, thank God it fell to him because he was such a responsible person,” she says, 𠇊nd he was smart enough to understand what the issues were.”

Beyond the legacy of the film that’s been inherited by her family, Zapruder also touches on the most elemental truths found in those 26 seconds — the human story that makes the film so hard to watch.

“[The film] is the visual representation of what we all know about the fragility of human life, that we don’t want to know … life can come to an end in an instant,” she says. Die feit dat dit gebeur het met die mooiste paartjie ter wêreld, die magtigste paartjie ter wêreld, die Kennedys, dra by tot die patos. Maar as u daarvan skei, sien u net 'n man en 'n vrou op 'n sonnige dag in die motor ry. En dan, skielik, is hy dood. ”

𠇍it is iets wat waar is oor die wêreld waarin ons leef, ” voeg sy by. Alles is broos en alles kan weggeneem word. ”