Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

 The one shot we got to see graphically in all the motorcade films is the fatal head shot in the Zapruder film. Some have tried to claim that we see it in the Muchmore film, but if that's true, why doesn't it look like the Zapruder film? There is no head-burst in the Muchmore film, and there is no violent "back and to the left" movement of JFK's head. There is no Jackie dodging JFK's head like it was a ballistic missile- like we see in the Zapruder film. So, if that's the fatal head shot in the Muchmore film, it is categorically different from the one in the Zapruder film, and that is a problem because there is no excuse for it. It's been sanitized. And the same goes for the Nix film. 

So, it's just the Zapruder film that shows it graphically. So, why did they let us see it there, when it appears that they made sure we didn't see it in the other films? 

First, their decision to let us to see it in the Z-film was not made at first. It was just the opposite; they kept it from us. Our first look at the Zapruder film was a week after the assassination in the November 29, 1963 LIFE magazine, which I possess. You can find it for sale online, on EBAY or ETSY, and it's not expensive. 

It's worth having because it includes an article about Oswald and Marina by Tommy Thompson, in which he didn't even mention that he and a LIFE photographer were the ones who transported Marina to the DPD on Saturday for her visit with Oswald, and then, instead of taking her back home to Irving, where she lived, they, inexplicably, checked her into a hotel on the outskirts of Dallas, the Executor Inn, where they plied her with cash, and then left her in the hands of the Secret Service, who started their "protective custody" of her immediately- before Oswald was killed. Do you think maybe they knew he was going to be killed? Damn straight they did. 

So, Tommy Thompason was responsible for manuvering Marina into the hands of the Secret Service before Oswald was killed, and that's why he didn't mention it. 

But, getting back to the 11/29 LIFE magazine, they published 31 frames from the Zapruder film, but it did not include 313- the fatal head shot. And they did not say there was a fatal head shot. They only mentioned two shots, one that hit JFK when he was behind the sign, resulting in him clutching his throat, starting at 225. Then, they claimed that Connally was hit separately, and their frame for that looks to be 239. 

Then, amazingly, they claimed the Jackie "suddenly" became aware of what was going on at frame 262, which is ridiculous. She was already turned and focused on her husband by frame 194, which was before they vanished behind the phony freeway sign. Then, they just said that he collapsed on his wife's shoulder, without mentioning that he was shot again. 

So, what were they thinking at that time? First, there were no plans at that time to ever show the Zapruder film to the public. They eventually did in 1975, so 12 years later. But, a tremendous amount of editing had to be done, and the technology for it didn't exist in 1963. The altering of the Zapruder film took not weeks or months but years. 

But, why were they unwilling to mention the fatal head shot? It may be because they were aware of James Tague getting grazed by a bullet or a fragment. So, they knew they had to save a bullet for him. They knew that they only had three bullets to work with. So, JFK, Connally, and Tague was their assignment of the three bullets at that time.  

But then, as you know, in April 1964, Arlen Specter put forward the Single Bullet Theory, which became doctrine. And in September 1964, the Warren Commission recognized the fatal head shot, and the next month, LIFE magazine did too in their October 1964 issue which returned to the Zapruder film, including their publication of frame 313, in all its gore-y. 

But, since they were claiming that all the shots came from the rear, why did they ever let us see the "back and to the left" motion of JFK's head? Are you like me in that you can still see and hear Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison telling the jury, "Back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left" ? 

So, why didn't they cut that out of the Zapruder film? Considering that they had 12 years to do it, they surely could have found a way to delete it. After all, they did delete the limo making the turn from Houston to Elm. Frame 132 shows the advance motorocycle cops; then in frame 133, it jumps to the limo suddenly being on Elm, having completed the turn. Here is the "dog ate my homework" excuse I found on Chat GPT:

• Zapruder initially aimed at the lead motorcycles and cars coming down Houston Street.

• As the motorcade turned left from Houston onto Elm, he momentarily lagged behind the limousine, which was not the very first vehicle of interest to him.

• When he caught up, he quickly panned right and re-centered the limo.

That rapid pan creates the impression of a “jump.”

I say "horse shit" to that, but what I don't know is what happened in the intersection to make them remove it. I know for sure that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, which was the nerve agent shot, but I don't think it happened in the intersection. 

But, it's not just that they let us see the gore; I believe they enhanced it. This is what they published in LIFE magazine on October 2, 1964:

Other renderings of 313 don't look exactly like that. And if that's what the camera saw, why didn't spectators report seeing it, the bursting of the front of his head? Why didn't the Parkland doctors report seeing it? Why don't the autopsy photos show it? 

And what is wrong with Americans? Knowing what LIFE published in November 1963, why didn't Americans scream bloody murder in 1964? How dare LIFE not only withhold that frame but withhold even mentioning the shot in 1963?  That was deception. It was misinformation. It was lying. 

But, what was the reality? How did the frame really look? I have to think it showed the big blow-out wound in the back of his head, described by the Parkland doctors. You notice that this image looks more like a painting than a photograph. And I do believe that paint was involved.

But, the big question is: why were they intent on horrifying us with that image but sanitizing all the others? I think it's because they wanted your eyes and mind to fixate on that and ignore all the other things they did to the Zapruder film.  In other words, it's a distraction. 

By October 1964, the Single Bullet Theory was doctrine. So, the Zapruder film had to show JFK reaching the sign unharmed. Then, he and Connally are shot with one bullet behind the sign. Then, JFK is shot again at 313. And that leaves a bullet for Tague. Bingo, it's Kismet.  

But, that is not what happened. JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, which was the nerve agent shot, and he rode down the hill that way, reacting only to that. Then, he was shot in the throat, and that too was a dissolvable missile, although it wasn't a frozen dart. It was something else, and all we can do is go by what Charles Senseney told the Church Committee. Then Connally was shot, and I don't claim to know how many shots that entailed. 

Removing JFK's ride down the hill reacting only to the back shot was a gargantuan task. It involved removing a large swatch of the film. They also installed the large, phony freeway sign, and they shortened the distance between it and Houston St. The idea was to make it look like JFK was smiling and waving until he disappeared behind the sign, but they didn't entirely succeed at that.  Here is frame 206, which was before the vanishing act, and you can see that JFK's face is smudged out (no doubt because he looked distressed) and Jackie is turned and looking at him. 

So, the bottom line is that they let us see the fatal head shot, in plenty of gore but not the real gore, in the Zapruder film because they altered so much in that film that they didn't want us to discover. They gave us a very graphic fatal head shot to preoccupy us and to keep us busy, so that we wouldn't question other things in the film, starting with the phony freeway sign and the shortened distance to it. 

JFK was shot in the back high on the hill and before the Croft photo. He was definitely shot in the back prior to this photo, and they did a ton of stuff to this photo to hide that fact. The arrow points to where he was already hit. That is not Jackie's face from 11/22/63. Why would she look like that when, supposedly, nothing has happened yet? Shouldn't she have been smiling and waving? That image was taken from a television broadcast she did in January 1964 with Bobby and Teddy by her side.