Harrison Livingstone writes: "If the [Zapruder] film shows a huge wound to the right side of the face, as it does, then all the witnesses who saw the dying or dead President and all the autopsy photographs are wrong. Common sense tells us they can't all be wrong (Livingstone, High Treason 2, 362).

"Common sense, therefore, tells us that the film is wrong. That it is a fake." (Ibid.).

He continues, "I have long wondered about a large apparent effusion of brain matter or flesh that spills from the right side of the face and temple region just after the President receives a shot to the head. . . . The material spewing forth from the head appears to stick out several inches and be about half a foot wide. It is spread all across the face. One would assume that it is an exploded face or brain, and it cannot be an optical illusion from reflections of sunlight off Jackie's hat and from the small flap of bone that evidently opens up at that point, as Groden has led us to believe. . . . (Ibid.).

"We see a small flap of bone with scalp attached on the right side of the head in some of the autopsy photographs but not in others. Trouble with the flap is, it changes orientation in relation to the rest of the head as the camera moves around the head. And it does not exist at all in the autopsy photograph of the right side of the head. There is a bat-wing-shaped structure on the head in the general area, but much too large to be the flap, and in the wrong place (Ibid.)..

"Groden claims that Mrs. Kennedy closed up the alleged flap on the way to the hospital, where it was not seen. But the autopsy staff say the flap we see in the picture is not in the right place either, or did not exist at all" (Ibid., 363-65)..

Livingstone quotes Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman: ". . . I saw nothing in his face to indicate an injury, whether the shot had come through or not. He was clear" (Ibid., 365, citing 2 H 82)..

Livingstone goes on, "There are many other statements that there was no damage at all to any part of the President's face, and none to the contrary" (Ibid.). He is correct: From Dealey Plaza to Parkland to Bethesda to the White House, where family members privately viewed the body, not a single person noted any damage to the face except a cracked supraorbital ridge, which caused the right eye to protrude slightly. .

"Corresponding to the gigantic wound in the right front of the face and forehead-temple area is a total loss of bone in the X-ray alleged to be of President Kennedy's head. We know that this would be impossible without the face being blown away, if it represents a shot from behind. If the bone had fallen in during transport to Bethesda, it would show somewhere in the X-rays. It does not. If it had fallen in, the face would have fallen in with the body on its back, and there is no sign of the bone anywhere in the skull. The face shows no sign of being unsupported by bone, and in fact looks perfectly undamaged. No doctor I have spoken to said that a face would remain normal if the underlying bone was gone (Ibid.)..

"The missing bone in the skull X-rays has to represent a blow-out of the face, which did not in fact happen (Ibid.)..

If the exit wound was in the rear of the head, where most eyewitnesses place it, or at the top or side of the head, as the autopsy photographs would indicate, then we should see "the blob coming out there if the [Zapruder] film was on the up and up, and not on the face, as we now see it in the film (Ibid.)..

"It is my opinion, therefore, that the Zapruder film has some animated special effects: The large effusion we see sticking out from the head is painted in for those few frames before the head falls into Jackie's lap" (Ibid., pp. 365-66). (He later clarified that he didn't mean it was painted *directly* onto the film [Livingstone, Killing Kennedy, 159])..

". . . We see the strange blob for more than twenty-five frames, far too long for it to be any sort of defect in the film. . . . it cannot be an artifact, because it is quite clear and distinctive for those twenty-five frames (High Treason 2, 366)..

"What is not clear and distinctive is the President's head, which seems to disintegrate and disappear by the time it is drawn into Jackie's lap. In one frame there is no face or head at all to the right of the line extending upward from the President's ear, and I see Jackie clearly to the right of and beyond the ears, where the rest of the head should be" (Ibid.)..

Not one frame -- two: 335 and 337, cf. color photo insert in High Treason 2; or Groden's The Killing of a President, pp. 38-39 and 188-89. .

Livingstone speculates that "the purpose of this special effect is to encourage the idea in Earl Warren's head that the President was shot from behind" (High Treason 2, 366)..

Look closely at color reproductions of frames 335 and 337 (it's nearly impossible to discern in black and white unless you already know what you're looking for). Page 38 of The Killing of a President has a gigantic blow-up of 337. Mentally draw a line straight up from the middle of Kennedy's ear; on the left is the back of his head; on the right is the pink sleeve of Jacqueline Kennedy's left arm where JFK's face should be. The "blob" also obscures the entire lower right of his face. Same thing for 335. Look closely -- is that John F. Kennedy's face's? IS there a face in these frames? Or is there only a shadow across the front of Jackie's dress, curving along a contour that almost approximates the shape of a face?.

And it's not just those two frames -- those are just the only two *clear* frames. All of the surrounding frames, however blurry, show that the President's face -- the entire front half of his head -- is missing. The edge of the front half also sometimes appears to be strangely blacked out..

Was the President's face actually blown away? Not only is this contrary to every single word of the eyewitness testimony; not only is it contrary to every other piece of photographic evidence (and I would not exclude the autopsy X-rays); not only is it contrary to any and all conclusions the government has put forth -- neither the autopsy report, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, nor anyone has concluded that the entire front half of Kennedy's head was blown off..

Not a single witness of the dozens and dozens who saw JFK's body in between Dealey Plaza and the time he was buried reported anything seriously wrong with the face -- much less that it was gone, as it appears in these frames. .

I credit Harrison Livingstone for another discovery, though I take it a little farther than he does. He refers to something in the Z film he calls "Kennedy's mottled jowl": "Kennedy's right cheek and jowl [are] very mottled or puffed up in the frames in the 280s. This seems unnatural, even if he had been shot in the throat or the back. This might be further evidence of composite frames that were not done perfectly" (Killing Kennedy, 170)..

That may be an understatement. The image Livingstone observes actually appears the instant Kennedy's right arm begins to fall from its raised position, no later than frame 252; by 266 it is quite distinct (cf. Groden, p. 184); on frame 312 it is larger and slightly brighter (cf. Groden, pp. 32, 35, 185 or High Treason 2 photo insert). Although I naturally recommend researchers look for this in high quality color frames, it is discernible in the mediocre black-and-white Warren Commission Hearings..

What is it? In Z 312 and elsewhere it is directly above Jacqueline Kennedy's left hand; so it is not her left hand. JFK is apparently unconscious, and his right hand has fallen to his side (cf. Groden, p. 184); so it is not his hand. It is not Mrs. Kennedy's right hand, which is visible over the President's left shoulder. It is no artifact; it appears on over sixty frames. It is not a blemish on the camera lens; it tracks the President's head within the frame. It is in very *nearly* the exact location on Kennedy's head as the "blob" will appear; the "blob" will be just slightly higher and to the right. If this is a wound, it is a wound that nobody ever saw, and I mean nobody -- no one in Dealey Plaza, Parkland, Bethesda, anywhere. And furthermore, if it is a wound, it was inflicted no later than about frame 250 -- over three seconds before the commonly accepted headshot at 313..

Can this image represent a natural phenomenon? If so, I eagerly await an explanation. I further submit that the pre-313 "mottled" image and the post-313 exaggerated false wound -- because of their nearly identical location -- may be related in an as yet unknown way..

Now, before anyone asks, I have no earthly idea why this pre-313 image is there, obscuring Kennedy's face on 60+ frames before the 313 headshot. It is most certainly not consistent with any of the theories we've heard about the assassination, nor does it conform to any process of film alteration that may have involved the post-313 alteration. .

I also have no idea where, when, how or by whom all this work was accomplished; and I cannot refute any of the observations in the Zavada Report, nor any of the conclusions being drawn from it..

If someone can offer reasonable explanations for these oddities in the film, I will express my gratitude and gladly drop the subject..

Dave Reitzes