Abraham Zapruder

Abraham Zapruder


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Eddie Barker: Abraham Zapruder, čiji je film o atentatu dugo proučavan na sinoćnjem programu, stajao je na ovom zidu tik uz rub travnatog brežuljka. Sada bi mu hici iza ograde ondje gotovo morali zviždati uz uho. Gospodin Zapruder, kada smo ga ovdje intervjuisali, bio je sklon da se složi da kvržanje nije u pitanju.

Abraham Zapruder: Nisam balistički stručnjak, ali vjerujem da bih čuo drugačiji zvuk ako bi mi pucali iz desnog uha. Čuo sam pucnjeve - ne bih znao u kojem smjeru da ih kažem - ali odvezli su ih iz skladišta knjiga u Teksasu i svi su zvučali slično. U zvuku uopće nije bilo razlike.

Sljedeće može biti od interesa za one koji bi htjeli baciti pogled na početak, iako teži postavljanju pitanja o jedinom dokazu za koji znamo da je stvaran, netaknut, nepromijenjen i 100% bez mane. Kvalitete koje čudno nema u karakteru onoga ko ga je snimio ...

Uzmite u obzir:

Abraham Zapruder-bijela ruska pripadnost, mason 32. stepena, aktivni član 2 vlasničke organizacije CIA-e: Vijeće Dallasa za svjetska pitanja i Krstaški rat za slobodnu Evropu;

Ove dvije organizacije bile su CIA (uz podršku) domaće operacije u Dallasu, čije je članstvo uključivalo:

Abraham Zapruder, Clint Murchison (u to vrijeme vlasnik Dallas Cowboysa), gospodin Byrd (vlasnik Teksaškog školskog skladišta knjiga), Sarah Hughes, koja se zaklela na LBJ kao 36. predsjednik dok je Air Force One još bio na zemlji u Dallasu, George DeMohrenschildt, (ugovorni agent CIA -e I najbolji prijatelj LHO -a), George Bush (također blizak prijatelj Georgea DeMohrenschildta), Neil Mallon, (mentor po kojem je Bush nazvao svog sina, Neil, po), HL Hunt i Demitri Von Mohrenschildt (brat Georgea D).

Godine 1953. i 1954. žena po imenu Jeanne LeGon radila je rame uz rame s Abrahamom Zapruderom u jednoj vrhunskoj firmi za dizajn odjeće, Nardis iz Dallasa. Jeanne LeGon dizajnirala je odjeću, a Abraham Zapruder za nju je izrezao uzorke i materijal.

Uzgred, u osmrtnici Abrahama Zaprudera pogrešno je naveden datum/godina kada je napustio Nardis iz Dallasa, pogrešno navodeći 1949. Tačna godina bila je 1959. [ista godina kada je njegov „partner u dizajnu“ Jeanne LeGon postao poznat kao, Jean LeGon DeMohrenschildt. .. Udala se za NAJBOLJEG PRIJATELJA Leeja Oswalda (koji će biti), ugovornog agenta CIA -e, Georgea DeMohrenschildta!].

Nisam imao fotoaparat, ali me sekretarica pitala zašto ga nemam, a ja sam joj rekao da neću imati priliku ni vidjeti predsjednika, a ona me nekako nagovorila, pa sam otišao kući, uzeo fotoaparat i došao nazad i prvo sam pomislio da bih mogao slikati s prozora jer se moja zgrada nalazi tik do zgrade u kojoj je bio navodni ubica, a to je preko puta ulice Elm 501, ali sam zaključio - možda ću sići i uzeti bolje slike, a ja sišao. Vjerujem da je to bila ulica brijestova, pa dolje u donji dio, bliže podvožnjaku, i pokušavao sam odabrati prostor odakle ću snimiti te slike, a pokušao sam na jednom mjestu, a to je bilo na uskoj platformi i nisam mogao balansirati sebe veoma. Pokušao sam na drugom mjestu koje je imalo neke prepreke na znakovima ili šta god da je tamo i konačno sam našao mjesto niže u blizini podvožnjaka koji je bio kvadrat betona. Ne znam kako ga zovete možda visok oko 4 stope.

Nakon prvog hica - vidio sam ga kako se naginje i nakon drugog hica - moguće je nakon onoga što sam vidio, znate, tada sam počeo vikati: "Ubili su ga, ubili su ga", i samo sam osjetio da se netko gangsterirao na njemu i ja sam još snimao slike dok nije ušao pod podvožnjak - čak ni ne znam kako sam to učinio. I onda, nisam se ni sjetio kako sam sišao s tog uporišta tamo, ali tamo sam, pretpostavljam, i išao prema - nazad prema svojoj kancelariji i vrištao: "Ubili su ga, ubili su ga", i ljudi koje sam sreo putem nisu ni znali šta se dogodilo i stalno su vikali: "Šta se dogodilo, šta se dogodilo, šta se dogodilo?" Činilo se da su čuli pucanj, ali nisu znali šta se tačno dogodilo dok je auto odjurio, a ja sam samo vikao: "Ubili su ga, ubili su ga, ubili su ga", i konačno su došli do moje ured i moja sekretarica - rekao sam joj da pozove policiju ili tajnu službu - ne znam šta je radila, i to je sve. Bio sam jako uznemiren. Naravno, nisam mogao zamisliti da se tako nešto radi. Otišao sam do svog stola i tamo stao dok nije došla policija, a zatim smo morali dobiti mjesto za razvoj filmova. Znao sam da imam nešto, mislio sam da bi to moglo biti od pomoći - nisam znao šta.

Gospodine LIEBELER - Da li ste ovdje u Dallasu, gospodine Zapruder?

Gospodine ZAPRUDER - Da.

G. LIEBELER - Kojim se poslom bavite?

G. ZAPRUDER - Proizvodnja ženskih haljina.

G. LIEBELER - Proizvodnja ženskih haljina?

Gospodine LIEBELER - Shvatio sam da ste snimili neke filmove u vrijeme atentata?

Gospodine ZAPRUDER - Tako je ..

Gospodine LIEBELER - Dok ste stajali sa ovom kamerom na ovom uporištu, povorka vozila je sišla niz Houston Street i skrenula lijevo na Elm Street, zar ne?

Gospodine ZAPRUDER - Tako je.

Gospodin LIEBELER - I onda je nastavio niz Ulica brijestova prema trostrukom podvožnjaku; je li tako?

Gospodine ZAPRUDER - Tako je. Počeo sam pucati - kad je povorka krenula, vjerujem da sam krenuo i želio sam je uvesti iz Houston Streeta.

Gospodine LIEBELER - Recite nam šta se dogodilo dok ste snimali ove fotografije.

Gospodin ZAPRUDER - Pa, kako je auto došao u red skoro - vjerujem da je bio skoro u redu. Stajao sam ovdje gore i snimao kroz telefoto objektiv, koji je zum objektiv, i dok je dopirao otprilike - zamišljam da je bio ovdje - čuo sam prvi hitac i vidio sam predsjednika kako se naginje i hvata se ovako ( držeći lijevo područje prsa).

G. LIEBELER - Uhvatiti se za prednji dio grudi?

Gospodine ZAPRUDER - Dobro - tako nešto. Drugim riječima, sjedio je ovako i mahao, a onda je nakon hica samo otišao.

Gospodin LIEBELER - Sjedio je uspravno u autu i čuli ste pucanj i vidjeli predsjednika kako se prevrće?

Gospodin ZAPRUDER - naginje se - naginje se prema strani Jacqueline. Na trenutak sam pomislio da je to, znate, kao što kažete, "Oh, uhvatio me je", kada čujete pucanj - čuli ste ove izraze i tada sam vidio - ne vjerujem da će predsjednik praviti ovakve šale, ali prije nego što sam imao priliku organizirati svoj um, čuo sam drugi hitac, a onda sam vidio kako mu se glava otvara i krv i sve je izašlo pa sam počeo - jedva mogu o tome govoriti [svjedok plače ].

Gospodine LIEBELER - U redu je, gospodine Zapruder, želite li piće vode? Zašto ne izađeš i popiješ vode?

Gospodine ZAPRUDER - Žao mi je - zaista me je sramota, ali nisam mogao pomoći.

G. LIEBELER - Niko se ne bi trebao sramiti takvog osjećaja, gospodine Zapruder. I ja se isto osećam. To je bila užasna stvar. Dozvolite mi da se sada vratim na trenutak i pitam vas koliko ste hitaca ukupno čuli.

Gospodine ZAPRUDER - Činilo mi se da sam čuo dva, možda i tri, jer sam po mojoj procjeni mislio da je pogođen na drugom - zaista ne znam. Cijela stvar koja se dogodila - bilo je jako uznemirujuće i kao što vidite sve sam se bolje osjećao i ovo se opet pojavilo i izgledalo mi je kao drugi snimak, ali ne znam. Nikada nisam ni čuo treći hitac.

Gospodine LIEBELER - Niste čuli pucanj nakon što ste ga vidjeli kako udara?

Gospodine ZAPRUDER - čuo sam drugi - nakon prvog hica - vidio sam ga kako se naginje i nakon drugog hica - moguće je nakon onoga što sam vidio, znate, tada sam počeo vikati: "Ubili su ga, ubili su ga", i samo sam osjetio da ga je netko napao, a ja sam i dalje snimao slike dok nije ušao pod podvožnjak - čak ni ne znam kako sam to učinio. Znao sam da imam nešto, mislio sam da bi moglo biti od pomoći - nisam znao šta.

Donald Purdy: Šta vas na normalnim putanjama metaka dovodi do zaključka da vam ovi dijagrami koji prikazuju fotografije omogućuju zaključak da metak nije prošao kroz oba čovjeka?

Cyril Wecht: Neizbježna je činjenica da, osim ako metak, posebno onaj ispaljen iz oružja velike brzine, relativno velike brzine, otprilike 2.000 stopa u sekundi brzine njuške - osim ako ne pogodi nešto čvrste tvari, poput kosti ili nečeg drugog, taj metak putovat će ravno.

Donald Purdy: Gospodine predsjedavajući, zamolio bih u ovom trenutku da se stavka sa oznakom JFK eksponata F-245, koja predstavlja iscrtavanje kadra 230 filma Zapruder, unese u zapisnik ... Dr. Wecht, po vašem mišljenju , je li guverner Connally mogao nanijeti oštećenje zgloba opisano u medicinskim izvještajima i još uvijek držati šešir kako je prikazano na ovoj fotografiji?

Cyril Wecht: Ne; apsolutno ne. U F-245, koji predstavlja eksploziju Zapruderovog okvira 230, prema teoriji o jednom metku rečeno nam je da je guverner John Connally, u trajanju od otprilike jedne i pol sekunde, već pogođen desnim grudnim košem desnom pluća probušena i kolabirana, kroz desni zglob, pri čemu je distalni kraj radijusa usitnjen, a radijalni živac djelomično prekinut. Čuo sam neke nejasne reference na živac u prethodnom svjedočenju, ali nisam čuo daljnju raspravu koju sam čekao o oštećenju živaca. Bilo je oštećenja živaca, da, radijalnog živca. Palac koji drži ovaj veliki teksaški bijeli stetson koji je potreban da bi bio u apoziciji s kažiprstom ili kažiprstom i srednjim prstima da drži taj šešir inerviran je radijalnim živcem. Primijetite u F-245 da se šešir još uvijek drži i da guverner Connally ne reagira. Ovo je opet vrlo oprezan pojedinac, pod vrlo posebnim okolnostima, i ne vjerujem niti prihvaćam u jednom trenutku priču koju moramo prihvatiti prema teoriji o jednom metku da su ova gospoda, u ovom trenutku, jednu i pol sekundu ranije, je već pogođen u grudi, kroz zglob i u lijevo bedro.

Donald Purdy: Dr. Wecht, da li je vaše mišljenje na osnovu ovog dokaznog predmeta, dokaznog predmeta JFK F-245, da guverner Connally još nije povrijeđen?

Cyril Wecht: Da; to je moje mišljenje.

Donald Purdy: Dr. Wecht, je li moguće da je bio ozlijeđen prije ovog kadra, ali još nije pokazao reakciju?

Cyril Wecht: NE; Ne vjerujem, s obzirom na prirodu i opseg njegovih rana, brojnost i oštećena područja, ne vjerujem u to.

Donald Purdy: Dr. Wecht, s obzirom na prirodu njegovih rana, koliko je prije nego što je pokazao reakciju najranije mogao biti pogođen?

Cyril Wecht: Pa, delić sekunde, opet, beskonačno mali trenutak. Moguće je da je djelić sekunde ranije mogao biti pogođen, iako ja u to ne vjerujem. Imajte na umu da sada to moramo povezati s Guvernerovom vlastitom verzijom i imajući na umu da je ovaj metak putovao brzinom cijevi 2.000 stopa u sekundi, mnogo većom od brzine zvuka. Imajte na umu da se to ne čini nimalo vjerojatnim. Sumnjam da je moguće da je već bio pogođen. Panel (od stručnjaka koje je okupio Odbor za zastupnike Predstavničkog doma za ubistva), koliko se ja sjećam, bio je jednoglasan u saglasnosti da postoji laka uzlazna putanja metka kroz predsjednika Johna F. Kennedyja, odnosno da je ... ulazna rana ulaza na predsjednikovim leđima, poredana sa izlaznom ranom u prednjem dijelu predsjednikovog vrata koja je povlačila ravnu liniju, pokazala je da se okomito metak pomaknuo malo prema gore, blago, ali prema gore. To je izuzetno važno iz dva razloga. Prvo, prema teoriji o jednom metku - s Oswaldom kao jedinim ubojicom ili bilo kim drugim, u prozoru šestog kata, jugoistočnom uglu zgrade Teksaškog školskog skladišta knjiga, metak se spušta pod kutom od 20-25 prema dolje stepeni, tako nešto, možda malo manje. Mislim da je to prvobitno pretpostavio tim za obdukciju i prvi istražitelji, znatno više. Kako, zaboga, metak može biti ispaljen sa prozora šestog sprata, udariti predsjednika u leđa, a opet imati pomak prema gore? Nije tu bilo ničega što bi uzrokovalo da promijeni svoj kurs. A onda je, sa blago uzlaznim smjerom, izvan Predsjednikovog vrata, taj metak krenuo na vožnju rolerom s velikim padom, jer je zatim nastavio; prema teoriji pojedinačnih metaka, preko guvernera Johna Connallyja pod kutom deklinacije od 25 stupnjeva. Koliko ja znam, među zagovornicima i braniocima izvještaja Warrenove komisije ili kritičarima nikada nije bilo neslaganja oko ugla odstupanja u Johnu Connallyju - možda za stepen ili dva. Taj metak prolazi kroz guverner na oko 25 stepeni nadole. Kako se metak koji se blago kreće prema gore u predsjedniku nastavlja prema dolje za 25 stepeni u Johnu Connallyju. Ovo ne mogu da shvatim. Moje kolege sa panela su toga svjesne. Razgovarali smo o tome i ono čemu se stalno vraćamo je "pa, ne znam kako su ta dva muškarca sjedila u međusobnom odnosu." Nije me briga što se dogodilo iza znaka autoceste Stemmons, ne postoji način na svijetu da to mogu spojiti, a isto tako na horizontalnoj ravnini, metak, imajte na umu, ušao je u predsjednikova desna leđa, ja slažem se, izašao sam u prednjoj središnjoj liniji Predsjednikovog vrata, slažem se, i odatle se kretao po definiciji, prema poznatim činjenicama, na ravnoj liniji od ulaza do izlaza, s desna na lijevo. I tako se taj metak kretao ulijevo, zatim je nekako napravio oštar kutni zaokret, vratio se skoro dvije stope, zaustavio se, napravio drugi zaokret i zabio se u guvernera Johna Connallyja iza desne pazuhe, u medicini nazvanog desno stražnje aksilarno područje. Vertikalna i horizontalna putanja ovog metka, 399, prema teoriji jednog metka, apsolutno je nedokučiva, neodbranjiva i nevjerovatna.

Cyril Wecht: Da; Vjerujem da F-246, koji je eksplozija Zapruderovog okvira 237, pokazuje da je guverner John Connally sada pogođen.

Donald Purdy: Dr. Wecht, šta vas u njegovim pokretima dovodi do zaključka da je pogođen?

Cyril Wecht: Tijelo se okreće, obrazi napuhuju, na licu mu je primjetna grimasa, za razliku, na primjer, od F-245, Z-okvira 230, i čini se da mu je neka kosa raščupana. Ove značajke mogu se vidjeti vrlo dramatično i jedan kadar kasnije, F-247, ili Zapruderov okvir 238, za koji vas podsjećam da je udaljen osamnaest sekundi od drugog intervala, i možete vidjeti kretanje kose, uvijanje tijela. U mom umu nema sumnje da je guverner sada pogođen.

Donald Purdy: Dr. Wecht, osvrćući se opet na dokazne predmete JFK-a F-229, F-272 i F-244, koji su okviri neposredno prije i okviri nakon znaka, razgovarali ste o činjenici da se muškarci nisu postrojili u horizontalna putanja?

Cyril Wecht: Da. Panel se, koliko se ja dobro sjećam, jednoglasno složio da je došlo do blage uzlazne putanje metka kroz predsjednika Johna F. Vertikalna i horizontalna putanja ovog metka, 399, prema teoriji jednog metka je apsolutno nedokučiva, neodbranjiva, i neverovatno.

Proizvođač konfekcije Abraham Zapruder bio je gledalac na Dealey Plaza koji je snimio čitav niz snimanja svojom jeftinom kamerom. Magazin Life odmah je prodao film za neiscrpnu sumu. Iako je Life objavio nekoliko kadrova u svojoj naslovnoj priči o izvještaju Warren Commission, sam film nikada nije prikazan u javnosti. (Čak je ni članovi Komisije nisu vidjeli.) Sada se to pojavilo, ljubaznošću La Bell Francuska.

Film Zapruder užasno je grafički. Prikazuje Kennedyja kako se grči dok mu udarac sa stražnje strane prolazi kroz vrat. Postoje mučni trenuci dok se on polako spušta naprijed u limuzini. Tada mu glava bukvalno eksplodira i šalje oreol krvne magle. Sila udarca ga tako snažno ljulja natrag u jastuk stražnjeg sjedala da je stisnut. On odskače naprijed dok ga Jackie hvata za njega. Nema greške da je ubijen hicem sa prednje strane. Osumnjičeni Lee Harvey Oswald bio je straga.

Požurio sam u Hollywood s filmom kako bi ga stručnjaci analizirali. Proglasili su je autentičnom, vjerovatno kopijom druge ili treće generacije. Tada sam shvatio zašto je Life, koji je zauzeo stav u prilog Warrenovom izvještaju i predstavljao izvođenje Geralda Forda o tome kako se došlo do zaključka bez zavjere, zadržao film sekvestriranim. U stvari, jedan anonimni pisac naslova u časopisu opisao je kadar iz glave kao snimak s prednje strane, a brojni pretplatnici dobili su kopije s tim naslovom. No, tisak je brzo zaustavljen na golem trošak, a ploča sa prekršajem je razbijena i zamijenjena onom čiji je natpis bio u skladu sa službenim stavom.

Jedna od centralnih prostorija Krvava izdaja je da su film Zapruder izmijenili članovi kabale koja je ubila predsjednika Kennedyja, u sklopu napora da se barem djelomično prikrije zavjera i spletkari. Ovaj je pojam posljednjih godina stekao sve veći kredibilitet, ali moram priznati da je to ideja koju dio mene želi potpuno odbiti, jer to jednostavno ne razumijem. Film Zapruder, poznat kao još od 1970 -ih, uvjerljiv je dokaz prednjeg strijelca, a time i zavjere. Zadržati se na navodnim izmjenama čini mi se kontraproduktivnim, nedostajući šuma za drveće.

Koliko sam shvatio cjelokupni argument, kadrovi su izbrisani iz filma kako bi se sakrili dokazi da je Kennedy pogođen s prednje strane, što bi naravno uništilo scenarij usamljenog oraha. Zavjerenici su zaplenili originalni film i izmijenili ga koristeći 1963. sofisticiranu, ali prilično uobičajenu opremu. Tragovi krivotvorenja neizbježno su ostali, ali nisu izvađeni dugi niz godina.

U filmu postoje neosporni problemi, poput onog da li se predsjednička limuzina zaustavila tokom fusilade. U konvencionalnom Z-filmu to očito ne čini, ali su brojni očevici pod zakletvom svjedočili da jeste, ili barem da je usporio (također se ne primjećuje).

Još jedno pitanje na koje se Twyman fokusira je brzina kojom vozač limuzine William Greer okreće glavu na dvije točke u nizu snimanja. Prema Twymanu, brzina ovog okretanja glave je fizička nemogućnost i dodatni dokaz da su ključni kadrovi izbrisani iz filma. Postoje snimljene rekreacije okretanja glave (nijedan subjekt to ne bi mogao učiniti na način na koji je Greer to učinio) i rasprave o proračunima koji su htjeli pokazati da se to ne može učiniti.

Ovo su možda Twymanove najmoćnije demonstracije. Ali u ovoj fazi još uvijek sjedim na ogradi po pitanju izmjene filma. Dovoljno je reći da dokazivanje navoda da je film Zapruder promenjen nije jednostavan zadatak. Poštovani istraživači izneli su tvrdnje sa obe strane pitanja; ovo nije problem koji će se uskoro riješiti - ako ikada.

Američko arbitražno vijeće stavilo je cijenu na najpoznatiji svjetski domaći film jučer kada je pristalo dodijeliti 16 miliona dolara odštete porodici Abrahama Zaprudera, čiji je 26-sekundni film o ubistvu predsjednika Kennedyja postao nacionalni relikvija. Advokati porodice Zapruder tražili su 30 miliona dolara u zamjenu za predaju filma nacionalnoj arhivi, ali su jučerašnju presudu nazvali "temeljnom i promišljenom". Međutim, nesložni član tročlanog arbitražnog odbora tvrdio je da je nagrada prevelika za oštećenu traku od 8 mm celuloida.

Abraham Zapruder, proizvođač haljina, stajao je 22. studenog 1963. uz rutu predsjedničke povorke kroz Dallas i snimao događaj kada su odjeknuli smrtonosni hici. Film u boji prikazuje predsjednika kako se hvata za grudi nakon prvog hica, prije nego što mu se glava raspadne pod snagom drugog metka.

Odmah nakon atentata prodao je snimke za 150.000 dolara časopisu Time-Life, koji je objavio pojedinačne kadrove, ali nije dozvolio da se film prikaže u cijelosti. U međuvremenu, to je postalo kultni fokus neprestane polemike o tome je li pucnjava bila dio zavjere. Time-Life vratio je film porodici Zapruder 1975. godine za nominalnih 1 USD.

Arbitri su pozvani kada se advokati za nasljednike gospodina Zaprudera i vlada nisu uspjeli dogovoriti o pravičnoj kompenzaciji nakon odluke Odbora za reviziju evidencije o atentatima 1997. godine da film treba biti proglašen trajnim vlasništvom američkog naroda.

Vladini stručnjaci istakli su da je čak i originalni rukopis govora predsjednika Lincolna prikupio samo 1,5 miliona dolara na aukciji, te da SAD ne bi trebale platiti mnogo više za film, pogotovo jer će porodica Zapruder zadržati autorska prava.

Advokati Zaprudera tvrdili su da je to jedinstven artefakt poput slike Vincenta Van Gogha ili otisaka Andyja Warhola, pa ga treba i cijeniti. Panel je donio 2 glasa za i 1 prema: "Zapruder film je jedinstven".

Bilo je i zanimljivih događaja s mjesta zločina, od kojih se možda čini da je najvažniji: Čuveni 26-sekundni kućni film Zaprudera o ubistvu JFK-a sadrži originalne fotografske slike atentata bez dokumenata. Ovu autentifikaciju ocijenio je potrebnim Odbor za reviziju zapisa o atentatima, koji je osnovao Kongres za nadgledanje objavljivanja zapisa JFK -a, jer je glasna frakcija teoretičara zavjere JFK -a devedesetih godina prošlog stoljeća tvrdila da je film prikriveno izmijenjen kako bi se sakrili dokazi zavjere. (Njihova je teorija opovrgnuta, ovi teoretičari zavjere napustili su polje JFK zbog zelenijih pašnjaka spekulacija o 11. septembru.) Međutim, to ne znači da nema nekih legitimnih i neugodnih pitanja o fotografijama vezanim za atentat.

"Jedini oprez koji imam u fotografskom zapisu tiče se materijala za obdukciju JFK -a", kaže Richard Trask, arhivar fotografija u Danversu u Massachusettsu koji ima najveću zbirku slika atentata na JFK -a i napisao je dvije knjige na tu temu. "To je područje koje me uvijek tjera da zastanem. Ne znam šta se dešavalo tokom obdukcije ako je došlo do zataškavanja ili samo nesposobnosti. To je jedino područje priče o JFK-u u koje sumnjam. "

I on bi trebao. Medicinski dokazi JFK -a gori su od nereda - to je dokumentirani nacionalni skandal koji čeka pristojnu vijest. Novi dokazi pokazuju van razumne sumnje da su nepoznati ljudi krivotvorili fotografski zapis Kennedyjeve obdukcije. Zakletva i zapisi koje je sastavilo Odbor za razmatranje evidencije o atentatima krajem 1990 -ih ne dopuštaju drugi zaključak.

Među ključnim otkrićima nakon kamena u medicinskim dokazima JFK-a:

Obdukcijske fotografije Kennedyjevog tijela nedostaju u vladinim arhivama, prema zakletvom svjedočenja ljekara i medicinskih tehničara uključenih u obdukciju. Porijeklo drugih fotografija obdukcije u zbirci ne može se utvrditi.

Dvojica agenata FBI-a koji su zapisivali bilješke tokom obdukcije dali su detaljna svjedočenja pod zakletvom odbacujući takozvanu teoriju o jednom metku koja opasuje službenu priču da je samo Oswald ubio Kennedyja.

Dr James Humes, glavni patolog JFK -ove autopsije, pod zakletvom je priznao da je uništio prvi nacrt svog obdukcionog izvještaja. Humes je ranije samo priznao da je uništio svoje izvorne bilješke.

Dr Gary Aguilar, oftalmolog iz San Franciska koji je pisao o obdukciji, izrazit je. "Po mom mišljenju, medicinski dokazi su zaista oštar dokaz prikrivanja", kaže on. "Priča je toliko izvanredna da je nekim ljudima, posebno u vodećim medijskim organizacijama, teško da se uhvate u koštac s njom. Nema sumnje da su se tog vikenda oko predsjednikovog tijela dešavale vrlo čudne stvari."

Zvuči kao paranoična fantazija? Više od nekoliko ljudi koji su učestvovali u obdukciji JFK -a se zaklelo na to.

Saundra Kay Spencer bila je tehničar u fotografskoj laboratoriji Mornarice u Washingtonu. Ona je razvila fotografije obdukcije JFK -a za vikend nakon Kennedyjeve smrti. Svoju zakletvu čuvala je 34 godine. Kada je razgovarala sa ARRB -om 1997. godine, Spencer je pokazala efikasnost karijerne žene vojnice. Bila je dobro pripremljena sa oštrim pamćenjem za detalje o svom učešću u zadivljujućim događajima od 22. do 24. novembra 1963. Njeno svjedočenje, nakon što je pregledalo sve fotografije obdukcije JFK-a u Nacionalnom arhivu, bilo je nedvosmisleno. "Pogledi [tijela JFK -a] koje smo napravili u [Pomorskom] fotografskom centru nisu uključeni [u trenutnu kolekciju obdukcija]", rekla je. "Između tih fotografija i onih koje smo napravili, moralo je biti masovnih kozmetičkih stvari učinjenih na predsjednikovu tijelu."

Agent FBI -a Francis O'Neill bio je prisutan tokom obdukcije i vodio bilješke. On je 1997. godine također pregledao fotografije. Pozivajući se na obdukcijsku fotografiju koja prikazuje ranu na potiljku Kennedyjeve glave, O'Neill je rekao: "Ovo izgleda kao da je na neki način doktorirano. Ne sjećam se konkretno tih - mislim, da su bili tako čisti ili tako popravljeni. Meni se čini da su ove slike bile. Činilo mi se da je postojala ... veća masovna rana. " O'Neill je naglasio da nije rekao da su same fotografije obdukcije liječene, već da su same rane očišćene prije snimanja fotografije.

James Sibert, drugi agent FBI -a prisutan na obdukciji, imao je sličnu reakciju na fotografije. "Uopšte se ne sjećam ništa ovakvog tokom obdukcije", rekao je pod zakletvom. "Bilo je mnogo - pa, rana je bila izraženija. Izgleda da je mogla biti rekonstruirana ili tako nešto, u poređenju sa mojim sjećanjem."

Ono čemu su se obojica protivili bio je nedostatak velike rupe na potiljku JFK-a na glavi što bi donekle ukazivalo na takozvanu ranu uslijed pucanja izazvanu hicem sprijeda.

Penzionisani agenti FBI-a bili su posebno ogorčeni oko teorije o jednom metku tvrdeći da je jedan metak nanio sedam ne-smrtonosnih rana kod Kennedyja i guvernera [Texas] Connallyja i da su se pojavili uglavnom neoštećeni na bolničkim nosilima.

Zapisali su autopsiju dok je doktor Humes pregledao Kennedyjevo tijelo. Obojica su rekli da su obdukcije zaključile da metak koji je pogodio Kennedyja u leđa nije prošao njegovo tijelo. Međutim, glavni patolog Humes zauzeo je drugo mišljenje u svom izvještaju o obdukciji, napisavši da je metak izašao iz Kennedyjevog grla i nastavio udarati guvernera Connallyja. Ali Humesov kredibilitet potkopava ARRB -ovo otkriće da je uništio ne samo svoje bilješke, već i svoj prvi nacrt izvještaja o obdukciji, a da nikada nije otkrio njegov sadržaj, pa čak ni postojanje.

Sibert je kasnije rekao istraživaču JFK -a za teoriju o jednom metku: "To je magija, a ne medicina."


Posljedice otkupa: Tribune skraćuje stranice za 20 posto, postavlja rane rokove

Umro je Dick Stolley, legendarni novinar koji je za časopis Life ubacio film Zapruder o ubistvu predsjednika Johna F. Kennedyja i koji je nastavio s pokretanjem časopisa People.

Stolley je umro u srijedu u 92. godini u bolnici u Evanstonu, Ill., Prema prijateljima njegove porodice.

Urednik ureda Life u Los Angelesu u vrijeme atentata, Stolley je odletio u Dallas nekoliko sati nakon što je Kennedy ubijen 22. novembra 1963. godine.

“To je bio najdramatičniji trenutak u mojih 70 godina novinarstva, rekao je Stolley “Face the Nation ” 2013. godine na 50. godišnjicu tragedije, pozivajući se na slijetanje ikoničnog snimka kamere od 8 mm koji bi postao najpoznatiji domaći film u američkoj istoriji i jedini filmski zapis o atentatu.

Dolazak u ruke filma bio je kombinacija sreće i vještog izvještavanja o cipelama — i dominacije Života, u to vrijeme ogromnog sjajnog i jednog od najprodavanijih tjednika u zemlji.

"Primio me telefonski poziv od honorarca Life -a iz Dallasa po imenu Patsy Swank", prisjetio se Stolley za Time. “A vijesti koje je imala bile su apsolutno naelektrisane. Rekla je da je jedan poslovni čovjek iznio kameru od 8 mm na Dealey Plaza i fotografirao atentat. Rekao sam: ‘Kako mu je ime?’ Ona je rekla, ‘[Novinar koji joj je rekao vijest] nije to precizirao, ali reći ću vam kako je to izgovorio. Bilo je Zapruder.'”

“Uzela sam telefonski imenik iz Dallasa i doslovno prešla prstom kroz Z, pa mi je iskočilo ime napisano upravo onako kako ga je Patsy izgovorila. Zapruder, zarez, Abraham.”

Stolley je rekao da je Zapruder film odnio u Kodak na razvoj preko noći i da su napravile tri kopije. Stolley je bio prvi izvjestitelj koji je kontaktirao Zapruder, ali ne i jedini. Zapruder mu je rekao da dođe u njegovu kuću sljedećeg jutra u 9 sati. Stolley je rekao da se pojavio u 8 ujutro.

“Dok su drugi novinari lupali na vrata tražeći da pogledaju film, Dick je već bio u svojoj kući,##8221 rekao je Hal Wingo, koji je radio sa Stolleyjem u Lifeu, a kasnije mu je pomogao da lansira People kao svog drugog zaposlenika.

Kamera Abrahama Zaprudera viđena je tokom pregleda izložbe posvećene ubijenom predsjedniku Johnu F. Kennedyju u Newseumu 11. aprila 2013. u Washingtonu. AFP putem Getty Images -a

Kad je stigao, Tajna služba je bila tamo i uzela dvije kopije. I drugi novinari su stigli do Zaprudera. Stolley je rekao da se uvijek pitao zašto Tajna služba nije zaplijenila sve kopije. Ponudio je Zapruderu 150.000 dolara za kolut — koji će se isplaćivati ​​u godišnjim ratama od 25.000 dolara tokom šestogodišnjeg perioda.

“Zapruder je rekao da imaju veće ponude, ali su mu dali život jer je rekao da je Dick bio najljubazniji i da se osjećao da se Dick tako ponašao, pa će se Life dobro pobrinuti za film,##8221 prema Wingu.

Zapruder je snimio 486 kadrova tokom 26,6 sekundi, a nakon što su postigli dogovor, slike su se snimale kadar po kadar u Lifeu.

"Što se tiče javnih podataka, mislim da je velika sreća što sam našao gospodina Zaprudera", primijetio je Stolley.

Zapruder je insistirao da se okvir 313 — koji prikazuje desnu stranu predsjednikove glave eksplodira u crvenoj boji, iz drugog snajperskog hica — izostavi iz originalnih magazina.

Stolley je doživotno vjerovao da je Lee Harvey Oswald bio usamljeni napadač.

Povorka predsjednika Johna F. Kennedyja u Dallasu u Teksasu prije njegovog atentata 22. novembra 1963. AP Photo/PRNewsFoto/Newseum, File

"Mislim da je film pomogao impresionirati američki narod da je mrtav", kaže Stolley. “Nepokretna slika to ne bi učinila. Amerika je morala sve to apsorbirati. "

Stolley je na kraju promoviran u urednika Life -a, a zatim je 1974. pokrenuo People, a zatim je bio urednički urednik Timea, tada najvažnijeg izdavača u SAD -u.


Rođeni Pekin, koji je slavno snimio Zapruderov film o atentatu na JFK -a, umro je u 92

PEKIN & mdash Zahvaljujući pristojnom Pekinovom odgoju, novinar Dick Stolley uspio je finalizirati kopiju najpoznatijeg domaćeg filma u historiji SAD -a: filma Zapruder o atentatu na Johna F. Kennedyja.

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. Oko 18 sati 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 Life 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. Life 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 LIFE 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 LIFE 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 LIFE 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 LIFE magazine really represented his best compromise.”

After the sale to LIFE, 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, LIFE was later criticized for limiting the public’s access to the film (private ownership and the damage of original frames also inspired conspiracy theories). Prema 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, LIFE 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 LIFE 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.” i

In the Hands of Life Magazine

Tako LIFE 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 LIFE 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 LIFE restrict viewing of copies available via government channels (in the National Archives)? How to explain the embarrassing fact that the LIFE lab had mangled and ruined a few frames of the film? How should LIFE 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 LIFE, 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 LIFE. 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, LIFE 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 LIFE 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 LIFE 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 LIFE 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 LIFE magazine really represented his best compromise.”

After the sale to LIFE, 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, LIFE was later criticized for limiting the public’s access to the film (private ownership and the damage of original frames also inspired conspiracy theories). Prema 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. “Činjenica da se to dogodilo najljepšem paru na svijetu, najmoćnijem paru na svijetu, Kennedyju, dodaje patosu. Ali ako se odvojite od toga, samo vidite muškarca i ženu kako se voze u autu po sunčanom danu. A onda, odjednom, on je mrtav. ”

“To je nešto što je istina o svijetu u kojem živimo, ” dodaje ona. 𠇎Sve je krhko i sve se može odnijeti. ”


Pogledajte video: KES LIWAT MAHKAMAH PERINTAH ANWAR IBRAHIM FAIL PEMBELAAN


Komentari:

  1. Nasir Al Din

    Dinamičan članak.

  2. Afram

    I think you will allow the mistake. Unesite mi ćemo razgovarati. Pišite mi u premijeru.

  3. Badu

    Mislim da nisi u pravu. Hajde da razgovaramo o tome. Pišite mi u premijeru, razgovaraćemo.

  4. Achates

    Completely I share your opinion. In it something is and it is excellent idea. Podržavam te.



Napišite poruku