Zapruder's testimony to the Warren Commission is here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm
Zapruder testified to the Warren Commission, authenticating first where he was standing, on the concrete abutment in Dealey Plaza:
Mr. LIEBELER - I show you a picture that has been marked Hudson Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if you can in fact see yourself in that picture?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Let me see--there it is here. That's me standing there--there's a girl--that's where I was standing.
Mr. LIEBELER - You are pointing out a concrete abutment that comes up immediately to the right of the sign that reads "Stemmons Freeway, Keep Right"?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right. That's the girl behind me--that's my girl that works in my office. She was up there, too.
Here's Hudson Exhibit #1
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0102a.htm
Zapruder can be seen in the image on the abutment above and to the right of the Stemmons freeway sign.
He was shown a book of frames from his film. He authenticated many of the individual frames taken from the film here:
Mr. LIEBELER - Now, specifically here let me show you the ones that have been numbered 185 and 186 and see if you can recognize those. This is 185 here that we are looking at now--of Commission Exhibit No. 885.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes. This is where he came in from Houston Street and turned there.
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; and they are going down Elm Street now?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes; this is before--this shouldn't be there the--shot wasn't fired, was it? You can't tell from here?
Mr. LIEBELER - (no response).
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I believe it was closer down here where it happened. Of course, on the film they could see better but you take an 8 millimeter and you enlarge it in color or in black and white, you lose a lot of detail. I wish I had an enlarger here for you.
Mr. LIEBELER - In any event, frame No. 185 does look like it's one of the frames, sir?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - And 186 is similar also?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes.
I am not going to quote it all, but he is shown and individually authenticates frames 207, 222, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 235, 240, 249, 255, and 313.
Finally, he is asked if the film is as he took it. He responds yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - It appears to you then, that this book of pictures here as you look through it, are your pictures?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes.
He was looking at photos from this exhibit:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0008a.htm
Now, that alone is sufficient to get that film introduced into the record.
But there is more. Zapruder also authenticated the film when he testified at the conspiracy trial of Clay Shaw. You remember that trial? It was for the purpose of establishing that there was a conspiracy by Clay Shaw and others to assassinate President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Zapruder's film was admitted into evidence in a real trial in 1969. It was shown in open court in 1969 and seen by those court witnesses in public session. Zapruder validated it then as well.
http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw2.html
THE COURT: ...Mr. Zapruder, when this equipment is properly rigged up and they play this film, don't say anything while they are playing the film. You will be asked questions after the film is played.
(WHEREUPON, the film was shown.)
THE COURT: Before we bring the Jury in, I think the State has to ask a question of this witness.
MR. DYMOND: There is one question I would like to ask also, Judge.
THE COURT: Let Mr. Oser ask his question first.
BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas?
A: I would say they do.
THE COURT: I didn't hear you again.
THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do.
You like to pretend the film wasn't seen until 1975. That is false. You like to pretend your supposed medical witnesses would be sufficient to get the film thrown out of court, but that is likewise a lie. It was admitted into evidence and shown several times at the trial of Clay Shaw.
You do have different standards for evidence against a conspiracy than for one. If the evidence indicates a conspiracy, like the statements of Ed Hoffman, you are all for them, even though Hoffman didn't come forward with any story until 1967, and in its first incarnation, spoke of seeing men leaving the TSBD. By the 1970's, he was speaking of seeing men on the knoll, but his story as published in his book is directly contradicted by the men who were known to be there on 11/22/63, like Sam Holland. You accepted Hoffman's statements as indicating conspiracy anyway.
Ditto with the March 3rd supposed "Oswald was CIA" memo you introduced here. You argued for its validity, and argued the May 8th "Oswald wasn't CIA" memo wasn't legit, because McCone in it was speaking for the FBI - enough, you said, to render it invalid, as McCone didn't have the authority to speak for the FBI. But it was actually the March 3 "Oswald was CIA" memo in which McCone spoke for the FBI, as I pointed out and you conceded when you admitted: "As to the May memo and the FBI. I'm afraid you are correct. For once." Now you've switched your tune back however, and McCone speaking for the FBI is apparently not enough to render it invalid. Instead, you claim the March 3 memo still "rings true" and "As far as you or I or anyone would know, that March memo may indeed be authentic. Certainly looks authentic." So even after you admitted you were wrong about the March 3 memo, you continue to post about the same evidence you previously conceded was false as if it were true.
If the evidence - like films and photos - disagree with your favorite conspiracy witnesses, then you discount that hard evidence entirely, and allege it is worthless. In your world, maybe it is. But in the real world, where the trial of Clay Shaw took place, it was admitted and viewed by the jury.
Let me reiterate the central point of this post in case you still don't understand it. Your claim that "... as for the Z film, the witnesses that observed the back of K's head blow out of brains, hair, scalp and blood, would negate that as well..." Well, as we've seen from the real life trial of Clay Shaw, no, it wouldn't. That is a lie. The Zapruder film was authenticated by Abraham Zapruder, accepted in the conspiracy trial of Clay Shaw, and shown in open court in 1969.
Your claims are false. The film is legit. All you've done is allege it isn't. You have not proven that, and your supposed '40 witnesses' don't prove that either.
And in fact, what you claim is necessary in court has in fact been done:
So the Zapruder film, since it was authenticated in open court by the man who filmed it, is, by your OWN ADMISSION, superior evidence to any eyewitness you intend to call to the stand. You wrote that was what was necessary to establish it as superior. That was done. In 1969. 43 years ago. Get up to speed here.
Go ahead, dismiss this all as baloney.
Hank
