Craig Lamson Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Now if someone could find a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" it would help. http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...ton&f=false Thank you Michael, A real contribution, taking us one step further down the road to the truth, while Colby and Lameson sit back and try to type out speed bumps, after saying the super secret lab was a myth, now say they didn't have the capability of altering the Z-film. While we know they didn't have the capability of enlarging individual frames, or they wouldn't have asked the NPIC to do that, we know that the guy who delivered the film knew it came from Hawkeye Works at Kodak in Rochester, NY, and we know that that's where Kodak came together with Itek, Lockhead and the Strategic Air Command under the banner of Corona, and that the very name of the place was classified until Lifton published it in this article, maybe we can find out if the Z-film was ever there. In evaluating new sources as to how much valuable information is there, if the qualifyier is delivering new sources, new records and new witnesses, then Doug Horne's book has at least a dozen new areas where it exceeds these qualifiers, and even if only one or two pans out, then it will be a significant breakthrough, and the naysayers, reclining chair cynics, and debunkers will be dancing and running around for the next few months trying to plug all the new holes that Doug Horne has punctured in the official history. The debunkers will be dancing for months over this, and its going to be fun watching them. BK Listen to this insanity! Kelly blows his entire wad and his credibility all in one fell swoop!: "While we know they didn't have the capability of enlarging individual frames, or they wouldn't have asked the NPIC to do that," Kelly and Horne want us to believe that the mythical "Hawkeye Works" has state of the art film processing (for Kodachome and 70mm aerial stuff as well), top notch animation cameras and optical printers along with master retouchers and they don't have a simple ENLARGER to make internegatives! Nor a c-print line to process paper? Simply fricking amazing! What a CT won't do or believe to keep a warped worldview intact! Keep it up Kelly, talk abotu fun to watch! --------- Craig, you used to be better at not sounding desperate. To describe one of the most even handed, listen-to-all -sides JFK researches there ever was-- William Kelly--as spouting insanity and having lost all credibility sounds about as convincing as the Warren Commission right now. Desperate? Surely you jest. Bill's is lost in the wilderness and can't find his asp with both hands. Anyone with even a single ounce of intellectual honest can see the bottom less pit poor William has dug for himself. Bill and company want the world to believe that a super duper, top secret, state-of-the-art CIA photolab...RUN BY THE BIGGEST COMPANY IN THE PHOTOGRAPHIC WORLD ( at their world headquarters no less) ... can't make a simple enlargement! ROFLMAO! When you guys get past your simplistic speculation and bring some real, hard data that shows the Z film has been altered, then get back to me. As it stands you are batting zero. In the mean time I think I'l enjoy the continuing saga of the z-film alteration bozos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Now if someone could find a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" it would help. http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...ton&f=false Thank you Michael, A real contribution, taking us one step further down the road to the truth, while Colby and Lameson sit back and try to type out speed bumps, after saying the super secret lab was a myth, now say they didn't have the capability of altering the Z-film. While we know they didn't have the capability of enlarging individual frames, or they wouldn't have asked the NPIC to do that, we know that the guy who delivered the film knew it came from Hawkeye Works at Kodak in Rochester, NY, and we know that that's where Kodak came together with Itek, Lockhead and the Strategic Air Command under the banner of Corona, and that the very name of the place was classified until Lifton published it in this article, maybe we can find out if the Z-film was ever there. In evaluating new sources as to how much valuable information is there, if the qualifyier is delivering new sources, new records and new witnesses, then Doug Horne's book has at least a dozen new areas where it exceeds these qualifiers, and even if only one or two pans out, then it will be a significant breakthrough, and the naysayers, reclining chair cynics, and debunkers will be dancing and running around for the next few months trying to plug all the new holes that Doug Horne has punctured in the official history. The debunkers will be dancing for months over this, and its going to be fun watching them. BK Listen to this insanity! Kelly blows his entire wad and his credibility all in one fell swoop!: "While we know they didn't have the capability of enlarging individual frames, or they wouldn't have asked the NPIC to do that," Kelly and Horne want us to believe that the mythical "Hawkeye Works" has state of the art film processing (for Kodachome and 70mm aerial stuff as well), top notch animation cameras and optical printers along with master retouchers and they don't have a simple ENLARGER to make internegatives! Nor a c-print line to process paper? Simply fricking amazing! What a CT won't do or believe to keep a warped worldview intact! Keep it up Kelly, talk abotu fun to watch! --------- Craig, you used to be better at not sounding desperate. To describe one of the most even handed, listen-to-all -sides JFK researches there ever was-- William Kelly--as spouting insanity and having lost all credibility sounds about as convincing as the Warren Commission right now. The Craigster is desperate. He has not even read the IV book by Horne, yet he claims to be an authority on it. I have read about two dozen pages so far and am impressed with the minute detail presented. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Now if someone could find a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" it would help. http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...ton&f=false Thank you Michael, A real contribution, taking us one step further down the road to the truth, while Colby and Lameson sit back and try to type out speed bumps, after saying the super secret lab was a myth, now say they didn't have the capability of altering the Z-film. While we know they didn't have the capability of enlarging individual frames, or they wouldn't have asked the NPIC to do that, we know that the guy who delivered the film knew it came from Hawkeye Works at Kodak in Rochester, NY, and we know that that's where Kodak came together with Itek, Lockhead and the Strategic Air Command under the banner of Corona, and that the very name of the place was classified until Lifton published it in this article, maybe we can find out if the Z-film was ever there. In evaluating new sources as to how much valuable information is there, if the qualifyier is delivering new sources, new records and new witnesses, then Doug Horne's book has at least a dozen new areas where it exceeds these qualifiers, and even if only one or two pans out, then it will be a significant breakthrough, and the naysayers, reclining chair cynics, and debunkers will be dancing and running around for the next few months trying to plug all the new holes that Doug Horne has punctured in the official history. The debunkers will be dancing for months over this, and its going to be fun watching them. BK Listen to this insanity! Kelly blows his entire wad and his credibility all in one fell swoop!: "While we know they didn't have the capability of enlarging individual frames, or they wouldn't have asked the NPIC to do that," Kelly and Horne want us to believe that the mythical "Hawkeye Works" has state of the art film processing (for Kodachome and 70mm aerial stuff as well), top notch animation cameras and optical printers along with master retouchers and they don't have a simple ENLARGER to make internegatives! Nor a c-print line to process paper? Simply fricking amazing! What a CT won't do or believe to keep a warped worldview intact! Keep it up Kelly, talk abotu fun to watch! --------- Craig, you used to be better at not sounding desperate. To describe one of the most even handed, listen-to-all -sides JFK researches there ever was-- William Kelly--as spouting insanity and having lost all credibility sounds about as convincing as the Warren Commission right now. The Craigster is desperate. He has not even read the IV book by Horne, yet he claims to be an authority on it. I have read about two dozen pages so far and am impressed with the minute detail presented. Jack Poor Jack, you can't be bothered to tell the truth now can you? Always making stupid claims you can't back up. Why should we ever expect anything else from you? The answer. We can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Bill, as I suppose that you know by now, "Pig on a Leash" is the title of the chapter David Lifton contributed to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Here is an exceptional review of that book by Rich DellaRosa, with whom I presume you are familiar. Enjoy it! http://www.jfkresearch.com/book_review.html BOOK REVIEW THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX Rich DellaRosa / James H. Fetzer, ed., [Editor's note: This book, which I edited, deals with rather subtle and complex issues, which thus required a reviewer who was completely familiar with the issues. That person, Rich DellaRosa, moderator of the JFKresearch.com forum, had even contributed an appendix to the book. Here follows his review.] THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX: DECEIT AND DECEPTION IN THE DEATH OF JFK James H. Fetzer, ed. (Chicago, IL: Catfeet Press/ Open Court, 2003), pp. xx + 496 by Richard J. DellaRosa The title of the book leaves little doubt about the subject matter. If it was a non-fiction murder mystery perhaps it would have been titled "The Butler Did It." "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" is the third in a series of books edited by Jim Fetzer comprised of various essays and white papers dealing with the JFK assassination. The earlier volumes are "Assassination Science" (1998) and "Murder In Dealey Plaza" (2000). While not absolutely necessary, it is beneficial to read all 3 books in sequence since "Hoax" contains references published in the earlier volumes. The Zapruder Film. That famous home movie taken by dress manufacturer and amateur photographer Abraham Zapruder on November 22, 1963, while perched conspicuously on a concrete pedestal in Dealey Plaza. It has been called the most important single piece of evidence in the JFK case. But is it? Some have even referred to it as a "time clock" of the assassination: it established a benchmark -- that the murder of the 35th President took place in 5.6 (alternately 6.2) seconds. Is this true? Many researchers believe that Zapruder's camera-original film is stored at the National Archives. Is it? If not, then where is the camera-original today? In 1998, the Assassinations Record Review Board (ARRB) designated the film an official assassination record and compensated Zapruder's survivors $16 million. What exactly did the American taxpayers purchase? And a rather vocal group of marketers believe the extant Zapruder film is genuine. Is it? Consider, for a moment, the following words: o Edited o Modified o Altered o Manipulated o Falsified o Fabricated With respect to a discussion of the Zapruder film, they are far from synonymous. Each, in increasing degrees, involve a devious, malicious and perhaps even a criminal intent. The authors tackle these issues in great detail. There has been much lively debate on whether the Zapruder film was "altered." A rather small group believes it was not. But how do we define "altered?" Understanding the established timelines and chronology of the extant film we know that there are 2 splices: one at frame 157 and another at frame 207. In addition, frames 208, 209, 210, and 211 are missing due to mishandling by an un-named technician a Time-Life during the time that they had possession of it. Unaltered?? Much of the "lively debate" mentioned above took place on the Internet, on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum (http://www.jfkresearch.com). It culminated in a symposium sponsored by Fetzer held in Duluth in May, 2003 where presentations were given by a professor of philosophy, an oncologist, a theoretical physicist, a well-known author, an expert in film and video production, and a photo analyst in the personages of James Fetzer, David Mantik, John Costella, David Lifton, David Healy And Jack White. The product of that symposium is the sum and substance of this book. Calling the Zapruder film "evidence" doesn't seem appropriate somehow, mainly because, from the beginning, it was not treated as evidence. If it was "evidence" it should have been seized immediately by local law enforcement or the Secret Service. Although Zapruder claimed that he was confronted in his office by a pair of armed, uniformed DPD officers who demanded his film, he refused. Instead, he actively sought to sell it to the highest bidder. When is "evidence" ever handled in such a manner? Zapruder reported that he sold his film to Time-Life on Saturday November 23, 1963 for $25,000 which he donated to the family of DPD officer J.D. Tippit. In truth, he had sold the print rights to Time-Life for $50,000. That transaction allowed LIFE magazine to publish still photos made from selected frames. It did not allow them the rights to show the film as a motion picture. But, on Monday November 25, Time-Life offered Zapruder an additional $100,000 for the movie rights as well. The total amount was paid on an annual basis over the next four years. As author David Lifton notes, that coincided exactly with LBJ's term in office. [Editor's note: This $150,000 is equal roughly to $900,000 in 2004.] As many researchers have observed, the total transaction effectively removed the film from being accessed or viewed, except as determined by persons unknown. What is known is that the name on the agreement was C.D. Jackson of Time-Life, a man who was a close associate of Allen Dulles and who was known to have cooperated with the CIA on occasion. The film's provenance is rather hazy at best and it is doubtful that it would have been admissible in a court of law if there ever had been a trial of Lee Oswald. The film was Kodachrome which required a proprietary, patented processing which could only be accomplished in 1963 at select Kodak facilities. A piece of correspondence contained in Roland Zavada's report to the ARRB indicated that Kodachrome could only be processed at labs in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles in 1963. What about Dallas? Zapruder stated that his film was processed at Kodak in Dallas (and there seems to be no reason, other than the above mentioned correspondence, to doubt this). The processed film then was taken by Zapruder to the Jamieson labs so that 3 optical print copies could be made. Supposedly, the camera-original film and one copy was transferred to Time-Life, and 2 copies were given to the Secret Service. This scenario has been told and re-told dozens of times over the years. But author David Healy reports that at Jamieson, the camera-original Was assigned number 0183, while the copies were given identification Numbers 0185, 0186 and 0187. So, what happened to 0184? Did they just skip that number, and, if so, why? Or, was there an unaccounted copy made? In the waning days of the brief tenure of the ARRB, a former CIA photoanalyst, Homer McMahon, provided testimony that in 1963 he worked at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington. NPIC was a part of the CIA and was an advanced photographic facility which, among other projects, was responsible for analyzing the U2 photos which showed the build-up of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962. McMahon's narrative included a report that a Secret Service agent named "Smith" delivered an amateur, 8mm film of the assassination to NPIC on the evening of 11/22/63. "Smith" advised McMahon that the film had been "processed" at Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York and then rushed onto Washington. Was this the Zapruder film?? Well, so much for the supposed long-established provenance. Could the film which was delivered to NPIC be the unaccounted copy #0184? 0184 may have been an inter-negative made by Jamieson which Kodak then "processed" in Rochester by making a positive print. McMahon reported that he was never left alone with the film and was not allowed to make copies of it. He was asked to analyze it and prepare briefing boards. His in-depth analysis was that there was evidence of 6 to 8 shots fired at the motorcade from at least 3 directions. On viewing the film ten or more times that evening, McMahon was (and still is) convinced of his conclusions. Does that description match what is seen today in the extant film? And why didn't the Warren Commission Report or the final report of the HSCA mention that the film was sent to the CIA? By now, the answer is probably obvious. When interviewed in the 1990s, Zapruder's business partner Erwin Schwartz, said that he vividly recalled watching the film and Remembered seeing JFK's head suddenly "whip around to the left" and saw an explosion of blood and brains from his head and that it had been blown out "to the left rear." On February 13, 1969 Zapruder said that he could not tell if frames Were missing from his film nor could he vouch for the film's chain of custody. It is possible that Zapruder could not recognize his film? The authors present discussions of the following issues: o Did Abraham Zapruder actually take the film attributed to him? There are films and stills which seem to show Zapruder without his camera up to his face, and some which show his employee Marilyn Sitzman actually blocking his view. And a further photo shows no one standing on the pedestal. In the Willis and Betzner photos, Zapruder appears to be on the concrete pedestal shooting a movie. But in the Bronson slide a bit later, the Moorman Polaroid, and the Nix film, Zapruder does not seem to be filming at all. Yet Zapruder stated, more than once, that he began shooting his film when the motorcade came into sight on Houston street and continued shooting until the limo was out of sight. o Did the technology and expertise necessary to alter film exist in 1963? It is indeed fortuitous that a member of the team is David Healy, a man with extensive experience (30+ years)in video and film production who is intimately familiar with the working of optical printers and other equipment and techniques used to apply special effects to film and motion pictures. Healy demonstrated early attempts to create composite images. In one case, a work called "Fading Away" by Henry Robinson was shown. It is composed of 10 separate images yet there are no visible cut lines and it displays an even density across all 10 image pieces. The end result is quite remarkable and is reproduced in the book. Even more astounding is that it was created in 1858 -- more than a century before the JFK assassination. o Were other films and photos taken that day also altered in order to agree with what is shown in the extant Zapruder film? One very vocal member of the anti-alteration camp uses this argument to prove that the Z film could not have been altered. In other words, since other films and photos seem to show similar events in Dealey Plaza, the Z film must then be genuine. He uses other pieces of photography to verify what is seen on the Z film. But this begs the question, if the Z film was altered, why wouldn't other photos and films be likewise altered? Would it not have been absolutely ridiculous to alter one piece of photographic evidence and not any other?? o If the Zapruder film was altered, why was it done? When the extant Z film became available for public consumption, the majority of those viewing it felt that it proved there was a frontal shot and therefore it seemingly showed the Warren Commission wrong. So why would anyone need to alter it? The authors explore this in great detail. Knowing what is seen in the extant film, one's imagination can only wonder what any alterations would conceal. It would be entirely reasonable that anything not consistent with the Warren Commission's conclusions would need to be edited out. Would an unaltered film completely destroy the Warren Report?? Would it show, as Homer McMahon described, 6 or more shots fired from 3 or more directions? Would the alterations themselves be prima facie proof of a massive government cover-up? o Who was Abraham Zapruder? Did he merely serendipitiously appear in a key location to witness and record a major piece of history? In this reviewer's opinion these are questions which deserve far more attention. We learn that Zapruder was born in Russia and that he was associated with Dallas's White-Russian community, as was Lee and Marina Oswald, Ruth and Michael Paine, and George DeMorhenshildt. In fact, we learn that Jeanne LeGon, one of De Morhenshildt's wives worked for Zapruder as a dress designer. One of Jack Ruby's janitors also worked for Zapruder for a time and Zapruder was also an acquaintance of Jack Ruby himself. Zapruder was also an associate of H.L. Hunt. Author Lifton states his belief in the serendipity theory, that Zapruder was just an innocent bystander with a camera, while apparently the other authors believe there may be far more to Mr Zapruder than what we have been told (but not that Z had any actual foreknowledge of the events that day). o Does the extant film show the true and accurate events that occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? Well, if it did this book and the Symposium that spawned it would not have been necessary. In fact, the film does not agree with the accounts of the closest eyewitnesses. Several dozen of them described a brief limo stop just prior to the fatal head shot. Yet the extant film depicts the limo proceeding down Elm Street at a rather smooth, constant, rate of speed. So, if it is altered, what does the extant film conceal? First and foremost it conceals evidence of more than 3 shots from more than a single shooter firing from the rear. That alone would invalidate the Warren Commission Report. Next, it conceals the possible complicity of one or more of the Secret Service agents. It conceals the limo stop, which made the head shot(s) easier to accomplish. Did Greer stop on purpose, or on cue? Author David Mantik states that he believes that JFK was hit by two head shots: one from the rear and one from the right front. He believes they occurred roughly at Z-313 and Z-321. Yet the extant film shows nothing of the sort. This 2 shot scenario also concurs with many eyewitness accounts. o Was Mary Moorman standing in the street when she snapped her famous photo?? And if so, why does it matter? This one particular topic was the subject matter for a lengthy exchange between the authors and one of the anti-alteration teams and took place on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum on-line. To say that this issue created a spirited debate is quite an understatement. Author John Costella summarized the Moorman-in-the-street issue thusly: "An analysis by Jack White in which he claims that the lines of sight inherent in Moorman #5 located her camera position precisely -- at such a height that she must have been standing on the roadway of Elm Street -- whereas the (extant) Zapruder film shows her standing on the grass some feet behind the curb." Both Mary Moorman and her companion that day, Jean Hill, repeated their claims that Mary stood in the street to take her picture. Since the extant film shows Moorman to be standing on the grass, either the two women were mistaken -- or -- the film was altered. But the authors did not merely need to rely on the women's memory. Jack White noticed that the intersection of two lines-of-sight involving the Pergola windows and the top of the concrete pedestal could only occur when sighted in from the exact location where Moorman said she was standing: in Elm Street itself. In 2001, authors White, Mantik and Fetzer utilized surveyor's equipment to locate the spot exactly in Dealey Plaza. The conclusion is inevitable: the extant film has been altered - significantly. o Has the Zapruder family been unfairly enriched? As noted above, the total amount paid to Zapruder by Time-Life was $150,000. In 1975, Time sold the film and all of its copyrights to Zapruder's survivor and family for $1.00. They formed the LMH corporation and hired an attorney to function as a "royalty cop." If anyone wished to use the Zapruder film or portions of it, a royalty had to be paid in every case. Royalties ranged from $3,000 to the $80,000 that Oliver Stone paid in order to use the film in his movie "JFK." In the late 1990s, the ARRB declared the Zapruder film to be an assassination record consistent with the JFK Records Act which empowered them. Federal law mandates that when the government takes possession of private property compensation must be made representing a "fair value." The ARRB determined the film to have a market value of $16 million and paid that amount to the Zapruders, with the Zapruders retaining the copyrights. Said copyrights were transferred subsequently to the Dallas Historical Foundation d/b/a/ (doing business as) The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. But, as the authors advise, if the Zapruder film is altered, that is, If it not a genuine photographic record of the JFK assassination, has the Zapruder family been unfairly enriched using taxpayer monies? If so, should the Zapruders re-pay it? This is not a trivial issue because it lies at the heart and soul of the anti-alterationists. They have demonstrated that their interest isn't the preservation of an historical document. Rather, their true interests are quite parochial and mercenary. Specifically, if those who seek to profit from the extant film admit that the film has been tampered with and is not genuine, the value diminishes to nothing more than evidence of one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetuated on the American people and the world community. Hence the anti-alterationists have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to discredit any and all proof of the film's alteration, manipulation, and downright fabrication. These issues and others are presented by the authors in this compelling book. Whether one becomes convinced of Zapruder film alteration after reading this book is a matter of choice but not for lack of information or substantiation. Of all the presenters who travelled to Duluth for the Symposium, the one who travelled farthest was Dr. John Costella, a theoretical physicist from Australia. Dr. Costella is something of a new-comer to the area of JFK research but he has made astounding contributions already. One of the more fascinating discoveries Costella has made involves the Stemmons Freeway sign in Dealey Plaza. As it turns out, the lens system on Zapruder's camera was patented by Bell & Howell. Its characteristics are well documented. As many are aware, Zapruder's Bell & Howell Directors Series 414 PD camera was set on telephoto while he filmed the presidential motorcade. This lens has a characteristic "pincushioning" effect which tends to pull the image frames outward. This pincushioning effect is clearly present in the extant Zapruder film, as it should be. Except, there is no pincushioning detected for the Stemmons Freeway sign along Elm Street, and, there should be. Costella shows that it is physically impossible for pincushioning to occur in portions of movie frames selectively while other portions are free from the distortion. How could the Stemmons sign have escaped the pincushioning? The short and undeniable answer is that the Stemmons Freeway sign as it appears was inserted into the film after it was processed. The sign should have had the same pincushion distortion as the rest of the frame as well as all the frames before and after the ones in which the sign appears. Recall that the extant film shows JFK smiling and waving to the crowd prior to disappearing behind the sign. When he re-emerges he has his hands up to his throat as he reacts to being shot. Irrefutably, the Stemmons sign obscures the throat shot - a frontal throat shot. Some researchers have theorized that the sign was also struck by a shot from the Knoll. (The sign was not made of metal but was plywood). Are these the reasons an artificial sign was inserted into the extant film? If so, Costella reasons, the extant film was not merely "altered" -- it was "fabricated." Fabricated, as in "falsified" -- with criminal intent since obstructing justice was, and still is, a crime. Consider also, that we are told that Zapruder carefully selected his position and although he stated that he suffered from vertigo, he chose to stand perched on top of that concrete pedestal. Yet, his closest point of view (POV) of the motorcade had a sign obstructing it. As author Healy notes, if Zapruder had chosen to stand at ground level in front of the Pergola, he would have enjoyed an unobstructed view. The final presentation is an interesting narrative by author David Lifton, detailing his 30+ year experience studying and analyzing the Zapruder film and his early suspicions of its alteration and forgery. Lifton is familiar to students of the JFK case mainly due to his best selling book "Best Evidence" which explored the possibility of body alteration. In this treatise he deals with film alteration. In fact it was Lifton who wrote to Warren Commission photo expert Shaneyfelt in 1965 to point out that the 2 frames published in Volume 18 appeared to be reversed. As a result he received a letter from no less than J. Edgar Hoover explaining that it was due to a "printing error." Later, on close examination of the film, Lifton noted that frames 335 and 337 showed what seemed to be a painted-on head wound which did not fit the description that nearly all of the Parkland doctors saw only moments later. Suspiciously, the head wound did match the description given later by the Bethesda autopsists. Author David Healy believes that the famous "blob" seen in some copies in the vicinity of Z-313 and the head wound noted by Lifton in frames Z-335 and Z-337 were created using a piece of glass placed over those frames. The artifacts then were painted onto the glass by a highly skilled matte artist. Lifton then points out that the most accomplished matte artists in the world are employed by the movie studios in Hollywood and raised suspicions of whether the Zapruder film could have been sent to one of them for alteration. But a matte artist would not be able to work with an 8mm image as it is far too small. Enter Moses Weitzman, a highly talented motion picture technician in New York. Clearly Weitzman was not a party to any of the subterfuge or alteration. However, in 1967 Time-Life approached Weitzman and requested him to make a 16mm copy of the 8mm Zapruder film. Weitzman perfected a technique which actually allowed him to make a 35mm copy from 8mm in one step. But was the film given to Weitzman for copying the camera-original or an already altered copy? An email from Weitzman to this reviewer dated July 10, 2003 states, "I can assure you I had the original unaltered, slit, regular 8mm footage. It would have been technically impossible to do any matte work or even optical printing." Author Lifton disagrees. The creation of 35mm frames were key, in his opinion, to the creation of matte images superimposed to alter the images of JFK's wounds. Weitzman could not have known whether the 8mm film was the camera-original. In the same communication, Weitzman wrote, "An employee of mine pirated a copy and made a career of it." Enter Robert Groden. David Lifton has had an interesting history with Robert Groden over the past 30 years which he describes in some detail in this book. In Lifton's stated opinion, Groden has adopted the belief that he (Groden) personally owns any JFK-related material that he touches. This has been problematic in having some of those items available to bona fide researchers. Having worked with HSCA as a photoanalyst, Groden has had access to plenty. Moses Weitzman also had the opportunity to work on the Nix film for UPI. When he viewed the Nix film on a Hazeltine analyzer at 8X magnification he wrote in a subsequent email to this reviewer: "To Zapruder's right there was a picket fence and behind that fence a clearly discernable image of what looked like a person holding a silver rod (about what a rifle barrel would look like) at port position. We sent several copies to the Jet Propulsion Lab at Cal Tech. Unfortunately they could only do B&W. They lost the nuances of color that shaped the image. A flesh colored void where a head should be, two smaller flesh colored blobs holding a silver colored broom stick. . . They could not find anything on what we sent them." And later commented "The original Nix footage and the blowups we made seemed to have melted away." So, what has happened to the original Nix film? David Lifton has his suspicions. When the alterations were made to the Zapruder film is not clear. There appears to be concurrence by the authors that some were done the very weekend of the assassination. But since the film was withheld from the public for some 12 years there is no way to know when and where other modifications were accomplished. This all nets out to the authors' assertion that the extant Zapruder film is not an authentic representation of what occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. It does not concur with the descriptions of the closest eyewitnesses. It is not merely an altered film but a total fabrication. In fact, the extant film may have been constructed using, not only Zapruder's film, but other films taken that day. This may account for Zapruder choosing such a poor POV -- he may have been a decoy intended to distract attention from other cameramen concealed nearby. For a relatively small cadre of researchers, the Zapruder film alteration issue is moot. They have seen another film of the assassination -- a better quality film. A description of it is reproduced in Appendix E. These fortunate folks have seen a film which closely matches the eyewitness accounts and is very different from the extant Zapruder film. This "other" film shows the limo turning from Houston onto Elm; it shows the limo coming to a full, yet brief, stop; it shows a man stepping into the street with fist raised possibly a signal for the driver to stop; it shows 2 shots to JFK's head from 2 directions; and it shows a shower of brain particulate violently sprayed to the left rear. It is important to note that none of the people who claim to have seen this film ever did so in the presence of any of the others. Nor did they view it in the same geographic location. Yet their descriptions of what they saw in the film match identically. For them, there is no question that the extant Zapruder film is a fabrication, part and parcel of a massive cover-up of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Whether one agrees with the conclusions of the authors, this is an important book for researchers and students alike. The authors have amassed a considerable amount of substantiation for their claims and the amount of effort is significant. I think we should get all the record before we debate what is in them. The Z-film that "bill smith" brought to the NPIC from the Hawkeye Works at Rochester was processed there, while the original Z-film was developed at Dallas. - BK Bill, this is helpful. Presumably, if there were an uninterrupted chain of custody--an authentic uninterrupted chain of custody--then it would have been impossible for the film to have been altered. An interrupted chain of custody is therefore a necessary condition for film fakery. (I have no doubt that this is why, instead of confronting multiple proofs of anomalies, Thompson has focused on the alleged "uninterrupted chain of custody".) That Horne has now established that the chain of custody was actually broken--that there IS no "authentic unbroken chain of custody"--is therefore valuable in refuting his argument. But there is a difference between HOW it might have been done and whether or not it WAS done. Your lack of interest in the anomalies that prove it WAS done has therefore been a reflection of your failure to distinguish HOW IT WAS DONE from WHETHER IT WAS DONE. David Lifton, Jack White, David Mantik, and John Costella--not to mention Rich DellaRosa--have established THAT IT WAS FAKED. Notice, in particular, that even if there were a broken chain of custody and two more teams were working on physically different kinds of film, as you have previously described, that is not enough to prove that they were working on TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the film. That is a question of content and no end of research on the chain of custody can replace PROOF IT WAS ALTERED. I am willing to grant that this new information completely destroys the argument that Thompson has pushed (of there having been no opportunity for it to have been faked). But those of us who understand the anomalies have always KNOWN IT WAS FAKED, where the residual question was HOW IT WAS DONE. This question, I am delighted to say, now appears to have been resolved. But notice that, if the film restoration experts who reviewed the film for Doug HAD NOTICED NO ANOMALIES, the whole matter would be moot. In fact, it was SPECTACULARLY OBVIOUS to them that the film had been faked. No one would care if the chain of custody had been broken, because, given an absence of anomalies, IT WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED. I think your heart is in the right place--I do not question your sincerity!--but you have to see through Thompson's phony argument. Now that you have, I hope you can appreciate why the anomalies matter. There is a basic difference between proving THAT SOMETHING HAS BEEN DONE from proving EXACTLY HOW IT WAS DONE. You have been preoccupied with the latter, we with the former. Both matter, but in different ways. I hope that this clarifies where I stand and that you now agree to the importance of both. I hope so. Was the Zapruder Film at the Hawkeye Works? By William Kelly "The research community, I argued, should get the records first, and debate what the data meant after we got the records." – Doug Horne (Page 1365, Chapter 14, Volume IV, Inside the Assassinations Records Review Board – IARRB, 2009) The very week that the first large batch of previously secret government JFK Assassination Records were released, Gerald Posner's book Case Closed was published, clearly provoking the message that the files were released and the case was closed. When the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) ceased its operations after releasing millions of pages of documents, one of the former board members, confident that the released records would confirm the government's official version of events, said that it would take at least ten years before the board's work could be seriously evaluated. It would take that long for people to read all the information that was released. Well now it's been over a decade since the ARRB closed up shop and said its work was done, and in retrospect with the publication of Doug Horne's Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, we know their work, identifying and releasing the government records, is not done, and neither is ours. While each of the five volumes of Horn's IARRB addresses important subjects, the one issue that has raised some of the most intense debates is whether the Zapruder film gives an accurate account of the assassination. For the most part, those who claim the film has been altered, and now branded "alterationists" by those who believe in the film's authenticity, have based their claims primarily anomalies in the content of the film - whether Jean Hill was standing on the curb or in the street, cuts and splices here and there, reversed frames in publications, and certifiably false descriptions of the content by Dan Rather and the Life correspondent Paul Mandel. In comments to reviews of his book at Amazon.com, Douglas P. Horne wrote: "…Although I did not set out to write a book about the Zapruder film, during my final year of writing it became a subject of intense focus for me, and the evidence I found of its alteration was astonishingly persuasive. I write about new evidence of the Zapruder film's alteration not yet presented elsewhere, so I encourage everyone who has not read Chapter 14 yet to keep an open mind and decide what to believe about the film's authenticity themselves, AFTER READING IT, and not to defer to the opinions of others. For decades I believed the film was authentic, because it was the natural assumption to make. Now, I am convinced it could not possibly be. I kept an open mind and went where the evidence took me on this issue, just as I did with the medical evidence." Jack White, Professor James Fetzer, David Healey, Harry Livingstone and others have focused on the anomalies and discrepancies in the film in an attempt to prove that it has been altered, while Josiah Thompson, Bob Groden, Gary Mack, David Wrone, Rollie Zavada and others have tried to dismiss their clams and maintain the Zapruder film is an authentic rendition of the assassination as it happened. While I have followed the debate from a distance, I was persuaded that the film was authentic by Thompson, who points out that three copies of the film were made and all four films would have to have been altered and that other films and photos that were taken at the same time and place would also have to be manipulated for the alterationists' theory to be true. I was also against the alterationist theory because I thought the extant Zapruder film was itself proof of conspiracy in exhibiting the appearance of a shot striking JFK in the head from the front and driving him "back to the left," as Jim Garrison famously said. While I thought it would be great if it could be proven to have been tampered with because that would constitute tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice - crimes that individuals could be indicted for, the anomalies themselves didn't point to any particular person who could have altered the films. I was also against the alterationist theory because I didn't think the Z-film was the best evidence of conspiracy, and didn't lead to anyone specific – a new witness who could shed more light on the case or a suspect who could be indicted. In Chapter 14 of IARRB Volume IV, Doug Horne does get into the micro analysis of anomalies, describing each one in detail, and adding a new one to the mix – the edge of the Stemmons Freeway sign, which was recently uncovered by Sydney Wilkerson, who works on Hollywood movies. Sydney bought some first generation large 35 mm stills of the Z-film from the NARA and with a team of professional Hollywood special effects producers, has examined the film closely. They are preparing a yet to be released report on their study which could include positive scientific proof of tampering, or at the very least will show how the film could have been tampered with, - eliminating the brief stop that over 50 witnesses claim they saw, fudging up JFK's head wound to indicate a large frontal exit wound, and eliminating the blowout of the back of the head. But more significantly, without regard to the content of the film, Doug Horne went back to where the first enlargements were made of the original Z-film still frames at the National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC) and interviewed some of those who made the enlargements. From their reports, he determined that two different enlargement sessions were held at two different times and using two different types of film. This inquiry into the Zapruder film trail leads to where the film could have been tampered with – at the CIA's secret Hawkeye Works plant, and who there might have done it. While Doug Horne's Chapter The Zapruder Film Mystery contains details of the debate over the anomalies in the content, the new Stemmons Freeway sign anomaly and the study being done by the Hollywood special effects team, the rest of this review will deal strictly with the disputed provenance of the hard copies of the celluloid film, and if this leads to new records that weren't covered by the JFK Act, or new witnesses and/or suspects. One way to gage the value of evidence or the veracity of witnesses is to weight it by how much can be independently verified and whether it leads to new records, new documents, new witness and new evidence. In addition, if one's approach to a subject has repeatedly run into a dead end wall, as the debate over the anomalies seems to, sometimes it is best to stop the head banging and try a different approach to the problem. [bK Notes: The Z-film chapter 14 in Volume IV runs 193 pages, from P 1185 to P 1378, and the quotes are sourced by the page number at the end of the quote.] In Chapter 14, The Zapruder Film Mystery Doug Horne writes: "No one would greet with equanimity being told that his approach to researching a subject has been incorrect—based on a false foundation—and that his life's work has essentially been a waste of time. This characterizes all fields of scientific and historical research, and explains the virulent passions aroused within academia whenever a new paradigm is introduced which calls into question the accepted research methodology for a given discipline. The more central the subject matter, the more those emotions are on display whenever the fundamental bases for a given approach are challenged. Thomas Kuhn's seminal 1962 work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, readily reveals this." In order to determine its authenticity the ARRB brought in a specialist, Rollie Zavada of Kodak, who studied the film and issued a report shortly before the termination of the board. At that time, Horne writes, "In late September of 1998, when the authenticity study was completed, I was simply grateful that Kodak had agreed to perform this task for the ARRB, and that we had been successful in getting them to do it on a pro bono basis. Physically and intellectually exhausted at the end of my frenetic three-year ARRB experience, I placed my copy of the report on the shelf, and didn't even begin to study it in any detail until May of 1999.2 What I began to find then, and continue to find today, is evidence within the report itself that casts doubt upon the film's authenticity…" P. 1186 "At one time in 1998, as the report was nearing completion, and as I was receiving frequent status reports from Rollie (Zavada) about his progress (on the Kodak report), he almost had me convinced that it was authentic. But since I began to study his report in detail in May of 1999, I have modified my position and now firmly suspect the extant film in the National Archives is a forgery, created from the true original in a sophisticated CIA photo lab at the Kodak main industrial plant in Rochester, New York." "That's right: I just said that I believe that the presumed 'original' of the Zapruder film in the National Archives today was not exposed inside Abe Zapruder's Bell and Howell movie camera, but rather was created in a photo lab run for the CIA by Kodak, at its main industrial site and corporate headquarters, in Rochester, New York (using Abe Zapruder's camera-original film, of course, as the baseline). Astronomer Carl Sagan once said: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'" "Fair enough. I intend to provide that evidence in this chapter. Before I proceed I wish to make one thing perfectly clear: during the period 1996-1998, I had the highest respect and admiration for Rollie Zavada, and I did not believe, at that time, that he was part of any attempt by Kodak to 'cover up the truth.' The Rollie Zavada with whom I worked so closely for over two years, from 1996-1998, was in my judgment at that time a man of sterling integrity, and an honest actor in all respects. We just happened to disagree about whether or not the Zapruder film was likely authentic, I reasoned, because each of us honestly and independently imbued selected aspects of the evidence with differing levels of importance." P 1188 "While I believe the film certainly does indicate that shots were fired from in front of, as well as from behind the limousine — and thus proves conspiracy — I believe that it cannot be used as a 'time clock' of the assassination, and that because of its alteration, it is worthless in this regard, and will lead anyone who attempts to use it as a 'time clock' to formulate invalid conclusions. Before I begin to present my case for these assertions, it is necessary to review the film's provenance prior to 1997." P 1194 "The Bell and Howell camera shot what was called 'double 8' film: each roll consisted of 25 feet of useable film that was 16 mm wide, with approximately 4 extra feet of 'leader' on each end, for a total of about 33 feet of 16 mm wide, double perforated film (i.e., with sprocket holes on both sides of the 16 mm film strip) on the spool. As a new reel of film was exposed in the camera, only one half of its width (8 mm wide), known as the "A" side of the reel, was exposed to images coming through the lens. When each 25-foot (actually, 33-foot) reel of film had been completely exposed on one side, the camera operator would open up the camera, move the full take-up reel at the bottom of the magazine to the upper position where the supply reel had been, and place the now-empty original supply reel where the take up reel had been at the bottom of the film magazine. Once this was done, and the film had been manually re-threaded in the camera, the camera operator was ready to expose another 25 feet of useable film, called the "B" side of the 16 mm wide reel of film. After each roll of double 8 film was completely exposed on both A and B sides, it was developed while still a 16 mm wide double perforated reel of film. After developing, the 16 mm wide reel of film contained two adjacent 8 mm wide image strips going in opposite directions; this necessitated slitting the 16 mm wide film down the center of the entire reel, and then joining together the two 8 mm wide film strips (sides A and with a physical splice. The result was a developed home movie product that consisted of 50 feet of useable film, with varying amounts of leader attached at the heads and tails ends, and with perforations on only one side—the left-hand side (when the image is viewed correctly). The finished product was now only 8 mm wide, and was a 'single perf' film that could only be played in an 8 mm movie projector." P 1195 "Zapruder had already exposed a home movie of family scenes on side A of his reel of film, and had flipped the full takeup reel over and placed it in the supply position in the film magazine prior to the motorcade, so that he could expose side B when President Kennedy's motorcade passed by on Elm Street. Prior to filming the motorcade on side B, he exposed about 177 frames of test footage [about 60 frames of a close-up of a green chair, and about 117 frames of people — apparently Marilyn Sitzman and the Hesters —near the white cement pergola west of the Book Depository], to ensure his film was threaded properly and that his camera was operating as it should be…" P 1196 "Without prejudice regarding whether the film in the Archives is authentic or not, it can be described as follows: the assassination portion of the Zapruder film in the Archives is now 480 frames in length (6 frames of the extant film—155-156, and 208-211—were damaged and removed by LIFE, but are still present on the two Secret Service copies); it is about 26 and one half seconds in duration when played at 18.3 frames per second; and the image content is only about 6 feet, 3 inches in length..." Zapruder, accompanied by others, including a Secret Service agent, took the film to the Kodak lab in Dallas to be developed, but because that lab cannot make copies, special arrangements had to be made with the Jamieson lab where three copies were to be made. Horne reports that, "…Since they knew that the Jamieson lab's contact printers could only accommodate 16 mm film, Kodak initially did not slit Zapruder's 16 mm wide, 'double 8' film down the center to create an 8 mm wide home movie, as they normally would have. His camera original film, as developed, was 16 mm wide, and had image strips on both sides (his home movie and the assassination sequence from Dealey Plaza), running in opposite directions." "Following their return to the Kodak lab at about 8 PM, the three Kodachrome IIA contact prints were developed by the Kodak staff and the 'first day copies' were then slit lengthwise, down the middle of the entire length of each film, per normal practice, and reassembled as 8 mm 'single perf' movies (presumably with the home movie shot on side A first, followed by the assassination film shot on side that could only be viewed in normal circumstances thereafter on an 8 mm home movie projector. The assassination film—either the slit original, or one of the 'first day copies'—was then viewed at the Kodak plant in its 8 mm configuration." "Whether the original film was slit or unslit on the day of the assassination, the record shows that it was retained throughout Friday night and into Saturday morning by Abraham Zapruder, along with one of the 'first day copies.' The only Zapruder film to leave Dallas on November 22, 1963 was the 'first day copy' that agent Max Phillips put on an airplane to Washington, D.C." P 1199 "The official record shows that Zapruder went home late Friday night with his original film and with one of the three 'first day copies'—the other two 'first day copies' had been loaned to the Secret Service. Zapruder would never see them again." P 1200 "Trask writes that the original was sent to LIFE's Chicago printing plant in preparation for the publication of still frames (the black-and-white images) in LIFE's November 29 issue, and Trask implies, but does not specifically state, that this occurred on Saturday. Although Richard Stolley told Esquire magazine in 1973 that the sole remaining first day copy went to LIFE's New York office on Saturday, Trask notes that this cannot be true because the film was viewed by various persons in Dallas throughout the weekend, and by others (including CBS news reporter Dan Rather) on Monday, November 25. The only film in Dallas available to be viewed on Sunday and Monday — since the Secret Service had two copies and LIFE reportedly had the original—was the third of the three 'first day copies'made by Zapruder, thus proving that it did not go to New York on Saturday as Stolley incorrectly recalled in 1973. The transfer of the original to the LIFE publishing plant in Chicago, which Trask assumes occurred on Saturday (simply because of the language in the Saturday contract and because Stolley shipped it to Chicago on Saturday), is by no means certain." P. 1201 "Richard Stolley approached Abe Zapruder Sunday night about renegotiating the contract signed on Saturday, in order to give LIFE full rights, rather than the limited print rights negotiated on Saturday—and that on Monday morning, LIFE publisher C. D. Jackson called Stolley and formalized what had been set in motion the night before, giving him official permission to acquire all rights to the film,…" P 1202 If any shennagans with the Zapruder film went on, those who claim it was altered point to the National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington D.C., run by the CIA, which turned hand written notes over to the ARRB that had been given to the Rockefeller Commission and indicated the Zapruder film was at the NPIC at some point during the weekend of the assassination. According to Horne: "Six pages of photocopied notes related to the Zapruder film had been retained by the NPIC since 1963. [There are five sheets of paper that constitute the notes; one sheet had information on both sides, yielding six pages of photocopied notes.] The undated notes, in retrospect, describe three different activities conducted at different times within NPIC by different groups of people, but this was not understood at the time by the Rockefeller Commission and indeed, was not understood by the JFK research community until 1998 when the ARRB's office files were released. One activity was the creation of enlargements—color prints—from individual frames of the Zapruder film, which were subsequently used in the creation of briefing board panels. A second activity was the creation of the briefing board panels themselves, which may have been done immediately after the enlargements were made, but in any case were created by different persons from the photographers who enlarged the Zapruder frames. [Three of the six pages of notes refer to the photographic work, and the organization and content of the briefing board panels.] We now know that photographic specialists enlarged frames from the Zapruder film by first making greatly magnified internegatives, and then by making individual color prints from each internegative; graphics specialists then created three briefing board sets, of four panels each, using the photos. The third activity was a shot and timing analysis of the image content contained in the Zapruder frames, which uses dentical language found in a shot and timing analysis published in the aforementioned article by Paul Mandel on page 52F in the December 6, 1963 issue of LIFE magazine." P. 1207 After buying the print and then belatedly the motion picture rights to the Zap film, and gaining control over the original film, Life then suppressed the film and kept it from being shown to the public, though bootleg copies flourished. Then Life sold the film back to the Zapruder family for $1 and the ARRB had to determine if the film could be considered for inclusion in the JFK Assassination Records Collection at the National Archives. Towards that end the ARRB conducted a rare public hearing on the subject of the Zapruder film, which was telecast on TV on C-SPAN and sparked some interesting investigative leads, or "walk ins," as they say in the intelligence profession. As Horne describes it, "On April 2, 1997, the ARRB conducted a Public Hearing at the old Archives building on the National Mall in order to "...seek public comment and advice on what should be done with the camera original motion picture film of the assassination that was taken by Abraham Zapruder on November 22, 1963." "The issue facing the Review Board was whether the Zapruder film was an 'assassination record' under the JFK Act that should be placed into the JFK Records Collection at the National Archives, and whether it should be considered U.S. government property, rather than the property of private citizen…The Public Hearing was aired on C-SPAN television and makes for interesting viewing;…" P 1214 A MAJOR CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY DISCREPANCY "Until 1997, there were no discrepancies in the film's chain-of-custody that seriously challenged the belief that the film in the National Archives was the same film described in the affidavit trail from the Kodak and Jamieson film labs in Dallas. There was one possible problem: that was the mention in the Rockefeller Commission's 9 page 1978 FOIA release (CIA Document 1641-450) that someone at NPIC had shot internegatives, conducted a print test, and made three copies. Although provocative and worthy of further attention and investigation, the meaning of this single, undated page out of the 9 total pages of released working notes from NPIC was both unclear, and as it turned out, misleading." "However, in 1997, and again in 2009, very strong evidence was uncovered indicating that while the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) never did replicate or copy the Zapruder film as a motion picture, that it did briefly possess the film, and perform two compartmentalized operations the very weekend of the assassination, in which two separate and distinct briefing board products were created for different customers within the U.S. government. Furthermore, the information obtained in 1997 (by the ARRB) was that the film brought to NPIC for analysis at the second of these two events that weekend did not come from Dallas (where the original film had been developed on Friday, November 22) but instead came from a CIA film lab at the Kodak main industrial facility in Rochester, New York, whose very existence was highly classified not only in 1963, but in 1997 as well." P 1220 "The ARRB's Public Hearing on the Zapruder film that C-SPAN televised on April 2, 1997 was seen by a former NPIC employee named Morgan Bennett Hunter (hereafter referred to as "Ben"), who was still employed by the CIA in 1997 in another capacity. His wife, who was also CIA, relayed to the CIA's Historical Review Group (HRG) that her husband had been involved in events related to the Zapruder film at NPIC the weekend of the assassination, as well as the name of her husband's supervisor at that event, Mr. Homer A. McMahon. HRG (represented by Mr. Barry Harrelson) then dutifully informed the ARRB staff that the HRG was aware of two witnesses to the handling of the film at NPIC the weekend of the assassination, and provided both of their names to us. In relatively short order, the CIA cleared both men to talk to us." P 1221 "Both men recalled that they were called in to work at NPIC the weekend of the assassination "a couple of days" or so after the assassination, but before the President's funeral, and that they worked throughout the night into the next morning to complete their assigned work on a home movie taken of the assassination (which no one called 'the Zapruder film' at the time, but which they both subsequently identified as that when they saw the surviving briefing board panels in 1997). The essentials of the event they both described are summarized below: McMahon was the Head of the NPIC Color Lab in 1963, and Ben Hunter, his assistant that night, was a relatively new CIA employee who had just left active duty as an enlisted man with the U.S. Air Force at Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska (SAC headquarters). Hunter began working with NPIC on December 17, 1962, and helped NPIC relocate from the Steuart Motors building (a Ford dealership used for cover) in downtown Washington into its new quarters in building 213 at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. on January 1, 1963. Robert F. Kennedy apparently had an old warehouse converted into NPIC's new, more secure location inside the Navy Yard following a 90-day crash renovation and conversion, following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In 1997, building 213 was still a nondescript-looking building with its windows bricked up, located across the street from the Navy Yard 'Metro' (i.e., subway) station in southeast D.C., and it was still dedicated to photography, except that in 1997 it was the home of NIMA, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. In 1963, McMahon stressed, the existence of the NPIC was so sensitive that he was not allowed to tell anyone that he worked at NPIC—in fact, he was required to use the CIA as his cover. While the CIA paid his salary, he was secretly an NPIC employee, working for a subdivision of the Agency whose existence was still secret" P 1222 "McMahon made clear that the reason he was so certain about the location where the film was developed was because the Secret Service agent used the in-house code name for a state-of-the-art CIA-funded Kodak photo lab at Rochester when he described where the film had been developed. The code word had only one possible meaning, and that meaning precisely identified that site as the CIA lab at Kodak's industrial facility in Rochester, New York. [When the CIA's HRG found out that McMahon had used the still-current code name for the facility in Rochester, they demanded that the ARRB excise the code name of the CIA's Kodak-manned Rochester photo lab from the audiotape that was to be released to the public, which I dutifully did. Any researcher who listens to the Archives recording of the July 14, 1997 interview will not hear the name of the facility on that tape, for this reason. However, there is also an unredacted tape in the JFK Records Collection — the original — which does contain Homer McMahon's coded reference to the CIA's Kodak-run lab in Rochester.]…" "Homer McMahon consistently claimed that he had enlarged individual frames from the original film, and that he recalled it was a 16 mm wide unslit double 8 home movie. During the first McMahon interview, he stated he was "sure we had the original film," because "we had to flip it over to see the image on the other side in the correct orientation." McMahon confirmed this recollection of an unslit double 8 home movie with opposing image strips during his in-person interview which was tape recorded on July 14, 1997…" "…Although McMahon personally thought he saw JFK reacting to 6 to 8 shots fired from at least three directions, he said that the Secret Service agent arrived with his mind made up that only three shots had been fired, and that they all came from the Texas School Book Depository, behind the limousine." P 1224 "Both McMahon and Hunter said they had never seen the 3 legal-sized yellow pages of notes related to the shot and timing analysis before. There was only one piece of paper among the original notes which contained the handwriting of either man—a half-sized sheet of yellow paper—the piece of paper upon which the handwritten entries 'shoot internegs, proc and dry, print test, make three prints,' and 'process and dry prints' are annotated, along with the respective times required for each step. McMahon recognized some of this handwriting as his own, and some of it as Hunter's. On the reverse side of this sheet of paper is a handwritten organization chart of the briefing board panels, and Hunter recognized two entries on this page as being written in his own hand." "Analysis: First of all, we can now state with certainty that NPIC never copied the Zapruder film as a motion picture, even though for years the NPIC notes had mislead some researchers into believing that it had. However, Homer McMahon's rock-solid certainty that the film brought to him was an original, unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 movie—and that it came from a classified CIA photo lab run by Kodak at Rochester—implies that McMahon and Hunter were not working with the true camera-original film developed in Dallas, but were instead working with a re-created, altered film masquerading as 'the original.'…" "…If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated 'original' created with an optical printer at the CIA's secret film lab in Rochester." DINO BRUGIONI Dino Brugioni is not new to those who have studied the JFK assassination. Besides writing the book "Eyeball to Eyeball" about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the role photo recognizance played in that affair, Brugioni wrote a book about the CIA's photo lab and how they uncover fake photos, like the one of Mao swimming is a fake, and the one of Oswald in the backyard with the weapons and commie magazines is real. In conclusion to his book on photo fakery, Brugioni says that one day photos will not be admissible in court as evidence because they can be so readily altered and manipulated. But it wasn't the ARRB who got Brugioni's acount, it was a tenacious independent researcher Peter Janney. Doug Horne explains how they got Brugioni's story: "During the period January 30-June 27, 2009, an extremely curious and energetic researcher, Peter Janney of Beverly, Massachusetts, after being alerted by Gerald McKnight (author of Breach of Trust) to the lead in Wrone's book, contacted Dino Brugioni and interviewed him on seven (7) separate occasions," "…Dino Brugioni was the Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, and worked directly for the Director of NPIC, Arthur Lundahl, from 1954 until Lundahl retired in 1973. Arthur Lundahl, as Dino Brugioni explained to Peter Janney, was the western world's foremost photoanalyst during those two decades. And anytime that Mr. Lundahl needed a briefing board prepared, it was Dino Brugioni, working with NPIC's photo-interpreters and graphics department, who oversaw its preparation, and the preparation of the associated notes that Lundahl would use to brief Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, for example. Dino Brugioni was so closely involved with the briefing boards prepared for President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis that he was able to author an excellent and captivating book about the role of NPIC in that crucial Cold War episode, called Eyeball to Eyeball. Dino Brugioni, therefore, is the ultimate, insider source for what was going on at NPIC during the 1950s and 1960s. He possesses unimpeachable credentials." "…the event he participated in actually commenced on Saturday evening, November 23rd (rather than Sunday, November 24th, as he had incorrectly estimated for David Wrone in 2003); that it involved the original 8 mm film — not a copy — and that it did not involve either Homer McMahon, or Ben Hunter, or Captain Sands, but an entirely different cast of characters. Furthermore, Dino examined photographs Peter Janney had made at Archives II of the 4 surviving briefing board panels made from the photos developed by Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, and Brugioni stated categorically that the four panels in flat # 90A in the JFK Records Collection are not the briefing boards he produced while on duty at NPIC;…" P 1230 "…The event began about 10 PM in the evening, when Dino personally met two Secret Service agents at the entrance to the NPIC, and ended at about 6 or 7 AM the next morning when Brugioni's boss, Art Lundahl (the Director of NPIC), arrived and the briefing boards which Brugioni and the NPIC staff had created were presented to Lundahl, along with the briefing notes Brugioni had prepared. Lundahl then took both sets of briefing boards to the office of CIA Director John McCone,…along with the briefing notes Brugioni had prepared for him; briefed the DCI; and then returned to NPIC later Sunday morning, November 24, and thanked everyone for their efforts the previous night, telling them that his briefing of McCone had gone well. P. 123 "Dino said that Captain Pierre Sands, U.S. Navy, was the Deputy Director of NPIC, which Peter Janney subsequently confirmed on the internet. Sands' one-page bio states that Pierre N. Sands was born on April 16, 1921, and died on May 26, 2004. He served in the Navy from May 1939-June 1973, and was placed in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Photographic Center after serving at NPIC. His biography on the internet identifies him as a member of the Presidential briefing staff during the Cuban Missile Crisis." P 1232 Horne quotes Brugioni as saying, "'I'm almost sure there were images between the sprocket holes.' During a follow-on interview when Janney tested Dino's firmness of opinion about whether the film was the original or not, Brugioni said definitively: 'I'm sure it was.'" "…He also said that the Secret Service was vitally interested in timing how many seconds occurred between various frames, and that Ralph Pearse informed them, to their surprise and dismay, that this would be a useless procedure because the Bell and Howell movie camera (that they told him had taken the movie) was a spring-wound camera, with a constantly varying operating speed, and that while he could certainly time the number of seconds between various frames if they so desired, that in his view it was an unscientific and useless procedure which would provide bad data, and lead to false conclusions, or words to that effect. Nevertheless, at the request of the two Secret Service agents, Ralph Pearse dutifully used a stopwatch to time the number of seconds between various frames of interest to their Secret Service customers. Dino Brugioni said that he placed a strong caveat about the limited, or suspect, usefulness of this timing data in the briefing notes he prepared for Art Lundahl. Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was '...of JFK's brains flying through the air.'" P 1233 "The obvious implications of the two NPIC Zapruder film events prior to the President's funeral are noted below, in what I shall call a working hypothesis, explaining what I believe likely transpired with the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination: • First, the camera original Zapruder film really was slit in Dallas at the Kodak processing plant after the three 'first day copies' were developed the evening of the assassination, just as the Kodak employees told Rollie Zavada when he interviewed them for his authenticity study. On Saturday morning, November 23rd, after the Secret Service in Washington, D.C. viewed the first day copy (that had been placed on a commercial airplane in Dallas and sent to Washington, D.C. by Max Phillips late on Friday evening), they no doubt realized an immediate need for the original film, so that briefing boards could be made from the clearest possible image frames. [No one would send a copy of an 8 mm film to NPIC to make briefing boards from—one would obtain and send the original film.] • Second, Richard Stolley's recollection that the original film went to LIFE's printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, for immediate processing, obviously requires reexamination …. . Third, the Secret Service and the CIA, obviously working together on the project, must have rushed the 8 mm camera original film from Washington, D.C. to the "Hawkeye Plant" in Rochester by air, immediately after Bill Banfield's photo technicians had run off the last enlargement prints for the McCone briefing boards, just prior to dawn on Sunday morning. The CIA's Kodak-staffed lab in Rochester would have had most of the day (probably about 9 or 10 hours), using an optical printer such as the Oxberry commonly used by Hollywood's special effects wizards, to remove whatever was objectionable in the film—most likely, the car stop seen by over 50 witnesses in Dealey Plaza, and the exit debris which would inevitably have been seen in the film leaving the rear of President Kennedy's head—and to add to the film whatever was desired, such as a large, painted-on exit wound generally consistent with the enlarged, altered head wound depicted in the autopsy photos which were developed the day before on Saturday, November 23rd by Robert Knudsen at NPC Anacostia. Captain Sands, a Naval Officer who was the Deputy Director at NPIC, was apparently instrumental to those altering the film in setting up a compartmentalized operation at NPIC, in which workers who had not participated in the events which commenced Saturday night (with the unaltered, true camera original film) would be used to create briefing boards from the now-sanitized, altered film. The delivery of an unslit, 16 mm wide double 8 film to Homer McMahon, well after dark on Sunday night, is proof that he received an alteration, and not the same film processed the night before (which was a slit 8 mm film). Furthermore, if the film worked on by McMahon and Hunter had been the same film worked on the night before, there would have been no need for a compartmentalized operation, and the same duty crew that worked on Saturday night could have been called in again. The fact that the same work crew was not used on Sunday night reveals that a covert operation was afoot. • Fourth, the three black-and-white, 16 mm unslit versions of the Zapruder film discovered in 2000 after the LMH Company's film holdings were transferred to the Sixth Floor Museum, and which both David Wrone and Richard Trask have written about in their books on the Zapruder film, were almost certainly made from the altered film after it was manufactured at the "Hawkeye Plant" in Rochester." . Fifth, three newly minted 'first generation' copies must have been struck from the new 'original' in Rochester before the altered 'original' was flown to Washington, D.C. Sunday evening for the preparation of the sanitized briefing boards at NPIC. Quite simply stated, if you are going to alter the original film, you have to manufacture altered copies as well. [We shall examine the qualities of the three extant 'first generation' copies later in this chapter to see whether this part of the hypothesis holds up.] • Sixth, switches obviously must have been made, as soon as possible, with all three 'first day copies' (which had been made on Friday in Dallas). The FBI, as well, must have been complicit in this early switchout, since it supposedly made all of its subsequent second generation copies from the 'first day copy' loaned to it by the Secret Service on Saturday, November 23rd. Although the FBI may have viewed a first day copy of the true original film following its arrival in Washington, all second generation FBI copies in existence today would have been struck after the first day copy was switched out with its replacement. A Secret Service 'first generation' copy was returned to Dallas by the FBI on Tuesday, November 26,..." - Seventh, it is highly likely — a virtual certainty, in my view — that the additional sum of $100,000.00 that LIFE agreed to pay to Abraham Zapruder on Monday, November 25 in a new contract was in reality "hush money," - Eighth, and finally, only so much in a film can be altered—there are also things that cannot be altered. It is my belief that the most damaging information in the film to the lone assassin hypothesis—the brief car stop on Elm Street in which the President was clearly killed by a crossfire, by multiple hits to the head from both the front and the rear, and the frames of exit debris leaving the rear of his skull — were removed at Rochester when the new 'master' was created. In addition, wounds were painted onto his head with special effects work which somewhat (but not precisely) resembled the damage recorded in the autopsy photos after the clandestine surgery at Bethesda Naval hospital.P 1242 Horne concludes: "Because the infamous 'headsnap' back-and-to-the-left could not be removed from the film, the film had to be suppressed as a motion picture, and not shown to the public." P 1244 Kodak's Hawkeye Works – Rochester, New York "In his 2003 article about the Zapruder film titled: 'Pig On A Leash,' David Lifton had called the CIA's lab in Rochester 'Hawkeye works.' I am prohibited from directly releasing the term provided to me in 1997 by Homer McMahon, so instead I have used both of these descriptors — obtained from open sources — interchangeably in this chapter. We know that the lab definitely existed in 1963, for Homer McMahon — the former Head of the Color Lab at NPIC — told me about the lab in 1997, and Dino Brugioni confirmed its existence, and its ability to handle the processing of motion picture film, repeatedly in 2009 during his seven interviews with Peter Janney. The name for the facility was still so sensitive in 1997 that the CIA's Historical Review Group had demanded that the ARRB redact from our interview tape the codename used by Homer McMahon during his July 1997 ARRB interview (but not the fact that the facility had existed in 1963). The 'Hawkeye Plant' is of great interest, the reader will recall, because Homer McMahon of NPIC told the ARRB staff that the Zapruder film he handled the weekend of the assassination was delivered to him from that location, where its courier, Secret Service agent 'Bill Smith,' told him it had been developed. Since overwhelming evidence exists that the out-of-camera Zapruder film was developed in Dallas on November 22, 1963 — and not in Rochester, New York on November 24, 1963 — the clear implication of the Homer McMahon testimony (at the present time) is that an altered Zapruder film may have been created at 'Hawkeye works.' The upper management of the ARRB was loathe to inquire with either the CIA or Kodak about the facility…" P 1364 "…In April of 2009. Finally, six months after its preparation began, the AARC's FOIA was mailed.) It, too, requests any and all records pertaining to: (1) the creation of all briefing boards at NPIC the weekend of the assassination; (2) the briefing on the Zapruder film given by NPIC Director Arthur Lundahl to DCI John McCone on November 24, 1963; (3) the processing and/or alteration of the Zapruder film at "Hawkeye works" the weekend of the assassination (if such activity occurred); (4) work done on any and all assassination films by the Federal government outside the city of Dallas, Texas after the assassination of President Kennedy; and (5) those portions of the NPIC history written by Dino Brugioni…" P 1377 While the idea that the Zapruder film was at the CIA's supersecret lab at Hawkeye Works stems from the Secret Service Agent "Bill Smith," likely an alias, this wasn't just any person, but someone with the Secret Service, someone who had access to the equally supersecret NPIC, and someone with the original and/or a first generation copy of the Zapruder film. Why isn't there any record of this person and this event? Just as Adele Edisen's story called attention to Col. Jose Rivera and Secret Service Agent in Charge of the New Orleans office John W. Rice, giving researchers years of research that is still incomplete, "Bill Smith" and Homer McMahon give us a lead that if true, will completely rewrite the history of the Zapruder film. Was the Zapruder film at the Hawkeye Works? And why is the very name and existence of the Hawkeye Works still a national security secret? BILL See also..Philip Melanson, "Hidden Exposure: Cover Up & Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film"..The The Third Decade no.1 ( November 84).9. Melanson makes a strong circumstantial case the NPIC received a copy of the Zapruder Film the day after the assassination"... Also see CIA document 1641-450 for NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film..of JFK's assassination These results were pried loose from the CIA by a FOIA request in 82 by Harold Weisberg ..or see Wiesberg's "Photographic Whitewash --Suppressed Kennedy Assassination Pictures"...1967..available at Hood College..pages: 302-303.) There is a record, NPIC's photo analysis of the Zapruder film, see E.H.Knoche, assistant councel to the CIA Director, to Robert Olsen 5/14/75....CIA document No.1641-450, released May 18/1982...Copy can be found in the Harold Weisberg Archive, Hood College, Maryland. p.374 B Thanks B. I wasn't aware of the late great Phil Melanson's article. Thanks. Also, Lifton wrote an article about the Z-film that I can't seem to find, that Horne cites, something to do with a Pig? Will check the reference again, and see if the article is on line, but in that article, Lifton uses the code word for the Rochester Lab, which was previously classified. If the Z-film was ever at the lab the chain of possession - provenance is broken, as it should not have been there, regardless of what they did. Nor is the veracity of the memory of the three CIA film experts questionable regarding the film they worked on because they are supposed to be film experts and they should know if they are working on a copy or an original film. Nor did they break security until after the ARRB Z-film public hearing on CSpan, when the two NPIC techs came out of the woodwork. We now know that one of the two enlargement sessions held at the NPIC included a Z-film that came to DC from the Hawkeye Works at Kodak Rochester, according to the guy who delivered it, who had a Z-film and had access to the super secure Anacosta base and NPIC, which itself was secret at the time. We also now know that the Hawkeye Works at Rochester had a top secret element that developed the Corona spy satellite film AT THAT SAME TIME 1960-1964 - and incorporated the Lockhead Skunkworks who made and launched the Corona rorcket in California (as they also did the U2), Gen. LeMay's Strategic Air Command (SAC) whose falsely named Test Squadron picked up the film in mid-air as it returned to earth and flew it to the Hawkeye Works at Rochester, NY where it was developed, and ITEK, who developed the camera for Corona, and also evaluated the Z-film for CBS and was founded by former Kodak people. It's a virtual hornets nest of spy techs, the basics of which were declassified by Clinton in 1992, but whose name was still classified when mentioned by Homer McMahon to Doug Horne and Jeremy Gunn at ARRB. I'd like to get a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" article that blows the name, and learn if any of those who got awards for their work on Corona ever knew anything about the Z-film being there. I also heard from a guy who worked at Kodak and Itek who said that when Itek had the film, he didn't work on it, but knew guys who did and they said there was evidence in the film of a gunman on the knoll. If there's one former employee who remembers the Z-film at Itek, there must be others, and also some at the Hawkeye Works who remember what happened. Horne's personal FOIA, and Jim Lesar's FOIA requesting all government records regarding the Z-film at Hawkeye Works, Kodak, Rochester, NY might spring a few records, but it is a shame that the Defense Contractors like Bell Hell, General Dynamics, Collins Radio and Kodak aren't legally obligated to either FOIA or JFK Act because they are independent contrators. They are however, spending the government's money (your tax dollars) and therefore, the documents generated by that money should be recognized as part of the government's records. I mentioned this in my ARRB testimony - refering to them as Third Party Records, but they didn't pay any attention to me. A. Goldberg, the Pentagon historian who helped write and edit the Warren Report, also wrote a published paper on the need to get defense contractor records made part of the overall program, though he certainly wasn't talking about JFK assassination records. If we get JFK Act oversight hearigns Colby and Lameson say I have to "prove this" and "establish that", and think this is some kind of internet debate, sit back and play the disbelieving cynic, while you, Scully, Robert Howard and a few others follow up and try to learn as much as possible, and share your results with everyone. My purpose isn't to win an internet debate, though Professor Fetzer said he will teach me how to do it, I am looking for new witnesses, new sources of records and new evidence that will resolve the outstanding issues regarding the assassination. Thanks to B. and all who assist me. Now if someone could find a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" it would help. Thanks, BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Now if someone could find a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" it would help. http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...ton&f=false Thanks Michael, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. How come I missed this? Ah, yes, now I remember, I got to the part about me and John Judge meeting Don Norton at University of Dayton, but here its says here it was in Toledo, a minor mistake, but still one that should be corrected. Was David Lifton's article "Pig on a Leash" published anywhere else before or after TGZFH? Is it available on line in full, rather than in this version, which is missing half its pages? I take it that the references to the Hawkeye Works is on p. 387 and 388 but 388 is missing. Can someone copy these pages and references and post them? Someone should also copy the entire article and post it if it to be part of the record, even if only a footnote. It should be called a biography of Bob Groden. And hey, the pig was real, it wasn't fake. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Now if someone could find a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" it would help. http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...ton&f=false Thanks Michael, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. How come I missed this? Ah, yes, now I remember, I got to the part about me and John Judge meeting Don Norton at University of Dayton, but here its says here it was in Toledo, a minor mistake, but still one that should be corrected. Was David Lifton's article "Pig on a Leash" published anywhere else before or after TGZFH? Is it available on line in full, rather than in this version, which is missing half its pages? I take it that the references to the Hawkeye Works is on p. 387 and 388 but 388 is missing. Can someone copy these pages and references and post them? Someone should also copy the entire article and post it if it to be part of the record, even if only a footnote. It should be called a biography of Bob Groden. And hey, the pig was real, it wasn't fake. Bill Kelly Hey, Bill...buy a copy of TGZFH. You can get one on Amazon USED very cheap. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Now if someone could find a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" it would help. http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...ton&f=false Thanks Michael, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. How come I missed this? Ah, yes, now I remember, I got to the part about me and John Judge meeting Don Norton at University of Dayton, but here its says here it was in Toledo, a minor mistake, but still one that should be corrected. Was David Lifton's article "Pig on a Leash" published anywhere else before or after TGZFH? Is it available on line in full, rather than in this version, which is missing half its pages? I take it that the references to the Hawkeye Works is on p. 387 and 388 but 388 is missing. Can someone copy these pages and references and post them? Someone should also copy the entire article and post it if it to be part of the record, even if only a footnote. It should be called a biography of Bob Groden. And hey, the pig was real, it wasn't fake. Bill Kelly Hey, Bill...buy a copy of TGZFH. You can get one on Amazon USED very cheap. Jack I had a copy Jack, but a few years ago I gave up on JFK research and gave most of my books and papers to John Judge in DC. Now I'm back, without my library. And someday I'm going to enjoy telling the story that brought me back. In the meantime, I'd like to know what Lifton said about the CIA 450 doc that Paul Hoch found, that's in his article "Pig on a Leash," as published in MIDP p. 387-388-?, because it is cited by Horne in IARRB as the first place that the name Hawkeye Works was published, thus releasing it of its classified status. And you are probably the source for the story about me, John Judge and Mae meeting Don Norton in Toledo. While Toledo is up the pike north of Dayton, we met Don in at the University of Dayton, where John and I were students, another interesting story. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) Listen to this insanity! Kelly blows his entire wad and his credibility all in one fell swoop!: "While we know they didn't have the capability of enlarging individual frames, or they wouldn't have asked the NPIC to do that," Kelly and Horne want us to believe that the mythical "Hawkeye Works" has state of the art film processing (for Kodachome and 70mm aerial stuff as well), top notch animation cameras and optical printers along with master retouchers and they don't have a simple ENLARGER to make internegatives! Nor a c-print line to process paper? Simply fricking amazing! What a CT won't do or believe to keep a warped worldview intact! Keep it up Kelly, talk abotu fun to watch! --------- Craig, you used to be better at not sounding desperate. To describe one of the most even handed, listen-to-all -sides JFK researches there ever was-- William Kelly--as spouting insanity and having lost all credibility sounds about as convincing as the Warren Commission right now. I agree with you that Bill NORMALLY is a "even handed, listen-to-all -sides JFK researcher" but in this case his attitude seems to be "I've made upmy mind don't confuse me with the facts" He: - Cites an unsubstantiated decades after the fact 3rd hand report, Horne claimed McMahon told him Smith said the film came from Rochester, as established fact, even though McMahon's assistant didn't remeber being told this. - Keeps referring to "Hawkeye Works" as a secret lab despite being repeatedly told it was part of the equipment division, this calls in to question his ability to pay attention and the reliability of his sources. - Keeps harping on the fact that Kodak could process 70mm b & w negative film as evidence they developed 16mm color positive Kodakchrome - Displays complete ignorance of photographic and intelligence matters claiming Kodak couldn't produce blow ups at their HQ thus had to send it to the NPIC. Actually he gets that backwards the CIA farmed out work to Kodak it couldn't due on its own. His claim would be akin to saying Lockheed had to have the CIA and USAF fly U2's for them because they didn't have the capacity to do so in house Edited December 11, 2009 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Listen to this insanity! Kelly blows his entire wad and his credibility all in one fell swoop!: "While we know they didn't have the capability of enlarging individual frames, or they wouldn't have asked the NPIC to do that," Kelly and Horne want us to believe that the mythical "Hawkeye Works" has state of the art film processing (for Kodachome and 70mm aerial stuff as well), top notch animation cameras and optical printers along with master retouchers and they don't have a simple ENLARGER to make internegatives! Nor a c-print line to process paper? Simply fricking amazing! What a CT won't do or believe to keep a warped worldview intact! Keep it up Kelly, talk abotu fun to watch! --------- Craig, you used to be better at not sounding desperate. To describe one of the most even handed, listen-to-all -sides JFK researches there ever was-- William Kelly--as spouting insanity and having lost all credibility sounds about as convincing as the Warren Commission right now. I agree with you that Bill NORMALLY is a "even handed, listen-to-all -sides JFK researcher" but in this case his attitude seems to be "I've made upmy mind don't confuse me with the facts" He: - Cites an unsubstantiated decades after the fact 3rd hand report, Horne claimed McMahon told him Smith said the film came from Rochester, as established fact, even though McMahon's assistant didn't remeber being told this. - Keeps referring to "Hawkeye Works" as a secret lab despite being repeatedly told it was part of the equipment division, this calls in to question his ability to pay attention and the reliability of his sources. - Keeps harping on the fact that Kodak could process 70mm b & w negative film as evidence they developed 16mm color positive Kodakchrome - Displays complete ignorance of photographic and intelligence matters claiming Kodak couldn't produce blow ups at their HQ thus had to send it to the NPIC. Actually he gets that backwards the CIA farmed out work to Kodak it couldn't due on its own. His claim would be akin to saying Lockheed had to have the CIA and USAF fly U2's for them because they didn't have the capacity to do so in house Okay, I'll back up and review the facts. The one fact that is established is that there is a place called "Hawkeye Works" just as McMahon said, and it is a secret CIA lab and not just a place where they make Hawkeye cameras, just like the "Skunk Works" isn't a place they make skunks, but the U2. Over ten years ago, McMahon said the word "Hawkeye Works" as the place the man who brought the Zapruder film into his secret CIA NPIC lab said he came from, but the CIA made Doug Horne take the word out of the transcript because it was classified. Kodak's Hawkeye Works was in operation for decades before the CIA began using the term, similar to the Skunk Works, also once a highly classified place where they built the U2 and the rocket used to launch Corona. Although Doug Horne doesn't mentin it, Corona is the first spy satellite that was to replace the U2, as we learn when Clinton declassified the program, included Lockheed (Skunk Works), Itek - who built the camera, and later did work on the Zapruder film, the Strategic Air Command, who picked up the film in mid-air and delivered it to Kodak who made and developed the film at a secret CIA lab at Rochester, New York. So now you tell me that the guy in charge of the CIA's NPIC lab didn't know what he was talking about, that there is no secret CIA lab at Rochester called "Hawkeye Works" that they only make equipment there even though the very word was still classified in 1992, and that I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, but now I've got a place - Hawkeye Works at Kokak in Rochester, New York, where the head of the CIA NPIC lab says the Zapruder film came from, and I'm interested because it gives me a place I can investigate and people I can question, and maybe new documents that will tell me what the Zapruder film was doing there, if it can be confirmed that it in fact was there the weekend of the assassination, when it wasn't supposed to be there according to the chain of possession - the provenance of the evidence - the film. And there we have Kodak, who made the film Zapruder used, Itek, who later evaluated the Zapruder film - Lockheed - (and thanks for mentioning that), who made the U2 and hired Gary Powers to fly it and gave him the same exact military ID card that Oswald had on him when arrested. Oh, and also in the mix is Curtis LeMay's Strategic Air Command (SAC) whose cover named "Test Squadron" picks up the satellite film in mid-air and delivers it to - the secret CIA lab at Rochester New York that they call the "Hawkeye Works," to be developed, before being evaluated by the DOD and CIA. Oh, yea, then they put captions on the photos, captions that were placed on the photos at Jaggers-Chiles-Stoval in Dallas, where Oswald worked at one time. So now I'm wasting my time even considering these things? And what have I made up my mind about? That there's a new question worth answering? Was the Zapruder film at Kodak's Hawkeye Works the weekend of the assassination? Doug Horne just asked the question and filed a FOIA request to answer it, and doesn't even mention the word Corona or any of the other stuff that I added on my own. And this is only one section of one chapter of Horne's book(s), and if any of the other issues that he brings to the table pans has an equal amout of information with new places, new witnesses and possibly new documents, then we're going to be very busy for quite awhile debunking all the new leads before they pan out. Now I'm being told that the secret CIA lab doesn't exist, that they only make tourist cameras there, McMahon's mind is faulty and he was mistaken, and since I don't know anythnig about the technical side of film, that I should just be resigned to the fact that I'm wasting my time and go back to reviewing Fetzer's books. Okay, Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 When you guys get past your simplistic speculation and bring some real, hard data that shows the Z film has been altered, then get back to me. As it stands you are batting zero. Craig Have you read TGZFH? Do I need to send you a copy? If you have read it then you have seen real hard data that the Z-film has been altered beyond question If you have not read it then you need too ASAP Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Now if someone could find a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" it would help. http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...ton&f=false Thanks Michael, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. How come I missed this? Ah, yes, now I remember, I got to the part about me and John Judge meeting Don Norton at University of Dayton, but here its says here it was in Toledo, a minor mistake, but still one that should be corrected. Was David Lifton's article "Pig on a Leash" published anywhere else before or after TGZFH? Is it available on line in full, rather than in this version, which is missing half its pages? I take it that the references to the Hawkeye Works is on p. 387 and 388 but 388 is missing. Can someone copy these pages and references and post them? Someone should also copy the entire article and post it if it to be part of the record, even if only a footnote. It should be called a biography of Bob Groden. And hey, the pig was real, it wasn't fake. Bill Kelly Hey, Bill...buy a copy of TGZFH. You can get one on Amazon USED very cheap. Jack I had a copy Jack, but a few years ago I gave up on JFK research and gave most of my books and papers to John Judge in DC. Now I'm back, without my library. And someday I'm going to enjoy telling the story that brought me back. In the meantime, I'd like to know what Lifton said about the CIA 450 doc that Paul Hoch found, that's in his article "Pig on a Leash," as published in MIDP p. 387-388-?, because it is cited by Horne in IARRB as the first place that the name Hawkeye Works was published, thus releasing it of its classified status. And you are probably the source for the story about me, John Judge and Mae meeting Don Norton in Toledo. While Toledo is up the pike north of Dayton, we met Don in at the University of Dayton, where John and I were students, another interesting story. BK I think I have always used DAYTON. I don't recall saying Toledo. If I did, it was a memory lapse. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Let me say that Doug Horne has been extremely generous in acknowledging the previous work by Jack White, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, and David Lifton, who are those who have made the most important contributions to establishing that the Z-film has been recreated... A very important pioneer has been overlooked, a critic who got there thirty-five years ago... "The considered opinions of our two film restoration professionals, who together have spent over five decades restoring and working with films of the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (when visual effects were done optically--not digitally), in that one moment superseded the statements of all those in the JFK research community who have insisted for two decades now that the Zapruder film could not have been altered, because the technology did not exist to do so. Our two restoration experts know special effects in modern motion picture films far better than Josiah Thompson, or David Wrone, or Gary Mack, or Robert Groden, or me, for that matter; and their subjective opinion [better: professional judgment] trumps Rollie Zavada's as well--a man who has absolutely no experience whatsoever in the post production of visual effects in motion picture films. And while Rollie Zavada, a lifetime Kodak employee receiving retirement pay from his former employer, would certain have an apparent conflict of interest in blowing the whistle on Zapruder film forgery if his former employer was involved in its alteration, our three Hollywood film professionals had no vested interest, one way or the other, in the outcome of their examination of the 6Kscans on August 25th of 2009." ...his name was Fred Newcomb: Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974) Chapter 4: The Filmed Assassination One of the most important films of the murder was an 8 mm color movie taken by Abraham Zapruder. The Secret Service had first access to his original film, which was then altered in an attempt to cover up the agency’s part in the plot.Zapruder stood mid-way between the depository and the underpass (1) and filmed the Presidential limousine from the time it turned the corner of Elm and Houston Streets until it reached the triple underpass. His untampered film recorded what occurred inside the vehicle. A number of copies of the Zapruder film, whose clarity ranged from excellent to poor, including the films and slides at Life magazine and those at the National Archives, were made available to the authors. Each copy was carefully examined and this chapter deals basically with the results of that examination. A movie is a series of individual pictures, or frames, in consecutive order (2). In describing the film, we refer to numbers assigned to each frame. Description The Presidential limousine first appears on available Zapruder film at frame 133, at a point in the street opposite the centre of the depository (3). The President, seated in the back on the right, is waving to the crowd with his right arm. He is hidden from camera view by a freeway sign, beginning at frame 203, and is shot in the throat at approximately frame 207. When he reappears from behind the sign at frame 225, his mouth is open and his hands are raised to his throat. From this point, he starts to lean forward, and to his left, until frame 313, when his head is impacted by a bullet. Beginning with frame 305, the driver turns around, one hand on the wheel, and faces the President (4), at which point the President’s head is struck by the fatal bullet. Between frames 313 and 323, the President is slammed backward by the impact of the shot. Between frames 323 and 340, he falls forward, and to his left, into his wife’s lap. Mrs. Kennedy scrambles out of the limousine, over the trunk, between frames 345 and 375. Her bodyguard, Clinton J. Hill, touches the back of the limousine at frame 345, placing his foot on the car at frame 371, to assist her. When the Governor reappears from behind the freeway sign at frame 223, he is looking to his right. Then he begins to turn his head forward. Between frames 227 and 230, he raises his hat (the whereabouts of which, possibly containing bullet hole, is unknown) up-and-down in reaction. At frame 233, he starts to raise his left forearm and to turn to his right again. The Governor’s mouth is open. Between frames 255 and 292, he continues to turn his head to the right, exposing his back to the front seat, until he is looking at the President. At frame 285, he is shot. He is then pulled backward by his wife. After the fatal shot to the President at frame 313, the Governor begins to pull himself up, placing his right hand on the metal handhold on the top of the back of the front seat. At frame 323, he is sitting up, looking into the front seat. A visible flare on the windshield of the limousine occurs at frame 330 as the result of another shot. Authentication For the Warren Commission, an FBI photographic expert numbered each frame of the Zapruder film. The first frame of the motorcade sequence was number “1” and the following frames were counted in order (5). In its published record of the film, the Commission printed black-and-white photographs of frame 171 through 334. This is just before the limousine disappears behind the freeway sign until just before Mrs. Kennedy begins to climb out of the back seat (6). The same numbering was used for those available copies of the Zapruder film that the authors examined. Each copy was placed on a viewer that allowed every frame to be seen and counted individually. The examined copies agreed with the published version. For example, frame 171 of the copies we examined was identical to the published frame 171. The head shot at frame 313 in the copies was the same as frame 313 printed by the Commission. All available copies were a single, continuous strip of film, without any mechanical splices. In sum, those available copies matched the film that the Warren Commission viewed. The original Zapruder film, however, seems to be unavailable. Cuts Between the period that Zapruder took his film and the Commission saw it, the film was altered. Available copies that we examined showed splices present (Fig. 4-3). All splices were photographic, i.e., the mechanical splices of the original were copied onto the duplicates (7). The following is an inventory of our examination. Splices in frames 152-159 concern the period after the limousine turned Elm and Houston Streets and before the freeway sign. Frame 152 is spliced at the bottom of the frame. In the next frame, splices exist at both top and bottom. In addition, the color changes. Instead of the previous warm color, the frames have a bluish cast. A great difference between frames 153 and 152 is indicated by the movement of the limousine: it makes an extremely rapid forward lurch indicating frames are missing here. Frame 154 has a splice at the top and is bluish in cast. Frame 155 contains a splice at the top third of the frame. Splicing tape marks are present in the foreground of frame 156, which is also bluish; a crude splicing gap appears at the base. A splice may exist at the lower third of frame 159. The next sequence in which splicing and color change occur is during the that period when the limousine is hidden by the freeway sign. There is a possible splice in the top eighth of frame 205. Splicing tape adhesive marks are visible on the freeway sign in frame 206. Frame 206 has a bluish cast, as do frames 207-212. Frame 207 is spliced at the top. A splice may have been made on frame 210 near the bottom. On frame 211, splicing adhesive tape marks are present. Splicing adhesive covers frame 212; a crude cut out is at the base. Frame 213 has a splice at the top; the color changes back to warm hues. At frame 215, a splice line runs across the top fourth of the frame. Color change indicates that different copies of the film were used to produce one continuous film (8). A graph, made to show the feet the limousine traveled per frame number, indicates the limousine moved about 20 feet every 20 frames (Fig. 4-4). Between frames 197 and 218, when the limousine is behind the freeway sign, it moved only 10 feet within 21 frames. This means that the limousine either slowed down or stopped between frames 197 and 218. If it stopped then an unaccountable number of frames could have been removed. Throughout the entire Zapruder film, nothing indicates that frames have been added. What is clear is that frames have been removed. Time has been deleted from the film. With time removed, the film is useless as a clock for the assassination. Retouching Retouching has been done with the image of the driver in the film between frames 214-333. It appears after the limousine emerges from behind the freeway sign. Retouching is evident on the front of the limousine windshield on the driver’s side to obscure his movements. The author’s reconstruction film, taken of a car on Elm Street, under similar lighting conditions, on Nov. 22, 1969, at 12:30 p.m., shows the driver’s motions clearly through the windshield. Retouching may also occur at the top of the freeway sign to obscure the action of the occupants and to hide the shot hitting the President in the throat. The object in the driver’s hand is barely visible between frames 285 and 297, the sequence of the Governor’s wounds. Between frames 303-317, it is easily seen. The telling feature, especially in the latter sequence, is the action: the driver raises it, seems to aim, and, then, in the frame immediately after the fatal shot to the President in frame 313, brings it down. Although splicing marks were undetectable about frame 313, it is likely that frames were removed and the remaining retouched. The appearance of frame 313 is vital to the health of the scenario. Given the forward inclination of the President’s head at the time of the fatal shot (Fig. 4-5), a line drawn through the actual points of entrance and exit is horizontal. If a rifleman fired from above and behind, the line between the points of exit and entrance would be at an angle. To camouflage evidence of a shot from the front, the actual exit wound at the side of the head (Fig. 4-5) was covered with opaque (Fig. 4-6). Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other films of the assassination lack this halo (9). The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder film two days [error: three days – PR] after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an exploding head (10). Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony (11). The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the President’s head (12), not only confuses the features of the head, but also distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground. The two Secret Service agents in the front seat and both Connallys implied a shot came from the rear by claiming that a substantial amount of debris came forward and down on them (13). No pictorial evidence verifies their claims. A good indication of removal of frames during the fatal shot sequence is found in the out-of-sequence movements of the legs of a woman running across the lawn in the background. The rhythm of her running is broken unnaturally, e.g., running on her left leg twice, which would indicate frame removal. Retouching can be seen in a comparison of frames 317 and 321 (Fig. 4-7). The President and his wife appear large in frame 321, even though the dimensions of the two frames are equal in size. Frame 321 was optically enlarged and then reframed. This eliminated material at the right hand side of the picture, such as the driver and the windshield. In addition, it is possible that in frame 321 the windshield was painted-in; it fails to match the windshield in frame 317. In addition, a change in perspective occurs. The line in the back seat in frame 321 has shifted. This means that the limousine has gone further down the street and that an unknown number of frames were removed (14). Refilming More evidence of tampering is indicated with the framing of the pictures, especially between frames 280-300. There, the heads of both the President and Connally scarcely appear, and almost disappear from view. This means that the original film was probably refilmed, and reframed, in such a manner as to remove certain material just below their heads. For example, on the afternoon of Nov. 24, 1963, two days after the assassination, CBS newsman Dan Rather viewed a copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas. His report noted that Connally, as he turned to look back at the President, “…exposed his entire shirt front and chest because his coat was unbuttoned…at that moment a shot very clearly hit that part of the Governor” (15). On available copies, only Connally’s head appears in this sequence. The possibility exists that the original Zapruder film was refilmed on an optical printer. Modern cinematography laboratories are equipped with optical printing machines that can generate a new negative without the “errors” of the original. Optical printers can insert new frames, skip frames, re-size the images, along with other creative illusions. One hour on the optical printer could eliminate the Connally hit (16). Deletions Most available copies, when viewed on a screen as a movie, are slightly jerky, especially in the movement of the limousine. Perhaps the maximum number of cuts was made, the greatest number of frames removed, without making it obvious to the casual viewer. Certain items could not be altered, such as the President’s head and body snapping backward, without elaborate artwork. But, of those who have seen the film, the cuts are overcome by the way in which people see the movie. The viewer’s focus is usually on the President, not on the other people in the limousine. Some of the action depicted on the film that was difficult to explain had to be eliminated. First, the limousine initially appears on available copies some 40 feet down from the top of the street; it literally leaps into view. Yet Zapruder stated that he filmed the limousine as it turned onto Elm St. from Houston St. (17). The copy that CBS reporter Dan Rather saw two days [error: three days – PR] after the assassination apparently had the turn on it because Rather described it (18). Frames deleted between 152-159 probably showed the decoy shot being fired from the Vice-President’s follow-up car. Cuts between frames 205-215 likely relate to two areas: reaction to the decoy (first) shot, and the second (throat) shot. Between frames 207-212, the President seems to swing his head very quickly to his left as if in reaction to the decoy shot. His action would indicate the direction of the Secret Service agent’s revolver as well as sharply contrast with the lack of reaction by those agents in the front seat of the Presidential limousine. The President’s reaction to the second shot, which hit him in the throat, is missing. Zapruder testified, “…I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area)” (19). CBS reporter Dan Rather said that “…the President lurched forward just a bit, it was obvious he had been hit in the movie…” (20). The Commission, which received the film from the Secret Service, published frames 207 and 212, both obviously spliced, but failed to print frames 208-211 (21). The alterations after the fatal shot probably were concerned with eliminating the limousine stop and the rush by Secret Service agents upon it. Indeed, the Secret Service made an effort “…to ascertain whether any [movie news] film could be found showing special agents on the ground alongside the Presidential automobile at any point along the parade route” (22). Film Confiscation In other films of the assassination, activity in the front seat of the limousine is either obscured or absent. All known movie films of the murder (except Zapruder’s) omit the sequence where the President was first hit. Confiscation of film explains this less than random pattern; all would not stop their cameras at the same time. Fig. 4-8 shows the areas of Houston and Elm Streets covered by nine known, amateur movie cameras, tracking the limousine. All of the professional movie cameramen were too far back to take footage of the action, except one. One amateur said that his 8 mm color film was lost during processing. When it was finally returned, some frames were ruined, others were missing (23). The assassination sequence that reached the FBI had 150 frames, equivalent to eight seconds (24). The limousine was in the amateur’s view for some 20 seconds, not including the time it was stopped. Another amateur’s 8 mm color movie film contained 66 frames of the assassination, approximately three and one-half seconds (25). Two Secret Service agents obtained both of a woman’s black-and-white still Polaroid photographs (26). One photograph showed the motorcade with the depository in the background; the other caught the President a split-second after he was struck in the head (27). When the two pictures were returned, her friend thought “some things had been erased” (28). Her friend recalled that the woman took four or five photographs of the motorcade, including “two or three good ones” of the President (29). A man turned his photographs over to a Secret Service agent who kept them for about one month before returning them (30). Retouching is apparent on a 35 mm colored slide he took about the time of the first shot (31). James W. Altgens, a professional photographer, took his still black-and-white photographs back to his office at Associated Press, had the film processed, and put on the wire (32). The Secret Service was unable to intercept these. Altgens snapped four photographs of the limousine as it approached Main and Houston Streets and turned right into Houston Street heading for the depository building. Then, he ran down across the grass triangle in the center of Dealey Plaza and into the sparsely populated assassination zone. Directly across from a grassy knoll, where Zapruder was filming, Altgens stepped from the curb and took a photograph of the approaching limousine approximately midway in the execution. Returning to the curb, he snapped another one of the limousine when it was two or three car lengths past him. These professional quality photographs were to become the clearest taken that day of the limousine on Elm Street. Altgens moved approximately 240 feet from Main and Houston Streets to snap his Elm St. photograph of the limousine in mid-assassination. The limousine traveled approximately 330 feet during this time. These distances give some indication of the low speed of the motorcade. A professional movie cameraman, within range, was referred to by an ABC News Director during a TV broadcast. The Director said: “A tv newsreel man was following in a car just behind the Presidential motorcade and at that particular moment had the President in the frame of his camera. He had it on close-up and he was panning from the Texas Library building [sic]…As soon as he saw the President fall…he then panned up and he said…”If I have on film what I saw through the eye of my camera, I have the complete assassination.” At that particular point…he was picked up by a Secret Serviceman. The Secret Service impounded the film; it was allegedly 16 mm color” (33). No such film has been located. Such professional quality film would show not only activity in the limousine, but also an empty “sniper’s nest” (34). Getting the Zapruder Film How did the Secret Service acquire Zapruder’s film? After Zapruder completed his filming, he returned to his office and asked his secretary “…to call the police or the Secret Service” (35). Then he went to his desk where he waited “…until the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the film” (36). An inspector with the Dallas Police Dept. was notified about Zapruder’s film. A sergeant told him that Zapruder refused to give the police the film and was waiting for either the Secret Service or the FBI. The inspector sent the sergeant, with two other men, to bring Zapruder and his movie to him. Instead, the sergeant reported back that Forrest V. Sorrels of the Secret Service was with Zapruder. The inspector then told his men to go about their usual assignments because “…since Forrest was already there and talking to him [Zapruder], I knew that that part would be taken care of” (37). Sorrels first learned about the film from a crime reporter for the Dallas Morning News (38). According to Sorrels, Zapruder “…agreed to furnish me with a copy of this film with the understanding that it was strictly for official use of the Secret Service…” (39). Sorrels went to the Dallas Morning News in mid-afternoon (40). He found that the newspaper was unable to develop the film, but did learn that the Eastman Kodak Co., in Dallas, could do so (41). The Kodak Film Processing Laboratory received “…one 8 mm Kodachrome II Film…” on November 22, and claimed they returned it unaltered to Zapruder. Kodak perforated the identification number 0183 at the “…end of the processed film and carrier strip [leader]…”(42). Sorrels may have advised Zapruder to have three copies made of the film. Kodak was unable to do so. The Jamieson Film Co. of Dallas, however, could make copies if the 8 mm film was in its original form as a 25-foot roll of 16 mm (8 mm is made by dividing the 16 mm and splicing the two 25 foot rolls together). Zapruder, therefore, had Kodak process the film without splitting it, then took it to Jamieson (43). Jamieson also received the film on November 22. The company asserted the film remained unaltered during the printing operation. Zapruder received three duplicate copies with the identification number 0183, at the end of the original film, printed onto the three duplicates (44). Zapruder returned to Kodak where he had the three duplicates processed and developed. They were given the identification numbers 0185, 0186, and 0187 (45). What happened to 0184 is unclear. Zapruder then had a total of four films, one original and three duplicates. He said he gave Sorrels two copies. Sorrels kept one and another was rushed to Washington, D.C., on November 22, by army plane. (46). Yet, according to a note of transmittal from a Secret Service agent to Secret Service Chief Rowley in Washington, D.C., the disposition was different. The agent stated: “Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the ‘master’ film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded” (47). Also on Friday evening, November 22, Sorrels did a frame-by-frame study of the Zapruder film in his Dallas office. According to Dallas Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes, who was present, “…we thumbed [through] that thing for an hour or more…push[ing] it up one frame at a time” (48). The next day, November 23, Sorrels gave a copy to an inspector of the Secret Service who at a later date loaned it to the FBI. The FBI returned it to the inspector, who gave it to Sorrels for the Dallas office of the Secret Service (49). The FBI was dependent upon the Secret Service for a copy of the film, which it then duplicated for its examination (50). The Secret Service retained the film until the altered version was prepared. Life On November 23, 1963, Zapruder made an agreement with Life magazine (51). Two days later, he asked Life to acknowledge receipt of the original and one copy (52). He wrote that the Secret Service had the other two copies, one in Dallas, and one in Washington, D.C. (53). When did Life acquire physical possession of the film? On November 29, 1963, Life printed some frames. But it only talked of a “…series of pictures…”; it failed to mention that it was a movie and also the name of the man who made it (54). There are two indications that Life was not in possession of the film. First, the lack of clarity in its reproduction suggests a copy. Second, the magazine enjoyed a reputation for its color printing. The film was in color, but Life’s reproduction was in black-and-white (55). In its memorial edition of December 13, 1963, Life printed colored reproductions of the film and mentioned “a Dallas clothing manufacturer…[took] pictures with his 8 mm home movie camera: it is from his film that these pictures are taken” (56). Yet three days later, the Warren Commission only saw a series of still photographs made from the film (57). It was not until Feb. 25, 1964, that Life showed its version of the film to the Commission” (58). It is likely that the Secret Service sanctioned what frames could be printed between 1963 and Sep. 1964, when the Commission issued its report. In the October 2, 1964, issue of Life, which covered the Warren Commission’s report, frame sprockets are missing on the cover and eight frames featured inside (59). The October 2, 1964, issue of Life appeared in at least six versions (60). Frame 313, with the bursting head, appeared in color in three of the six versions. Chairman Warren displayed his advance knowledge of the head burst before the Warren Commission on Dec. 16, 1963. “There’s another sequence which they [Life] did not include,” he said, “and it shows the burst of blood and things from his head, blown out” (61). This seems to be the earliest date when certain knowledge was expressed about the manufactured head burst. This frame was not printed in Life until Oct. 2, 1964. CBS reporter Dan Rather, who saw the film in Dallas two days after the assassination, did not mention this dramatic burst. In addition, other movie films of this same sequence failed to record it. At what point did Life realize that it did not have the original film? It waited until May 1967 to copyright it (62). Tell-Tale Sign At some time between Nov. 22, 1963, and Dec. 5, 1963, the Stemmons Freeway sign was re-positioned and raised, invalidating any accurate reconstruction of the crime. On Dec. 16, 1963, member John J. McCloy commented on it and its significance before a Commission meeting: “You see this sign here,” he said, “pointing to a frame from the Zapruder film, “someone suggested that this sign has now been removed…from the sign you can get a good notion of where the first bullet hit” (63). It was on July 22, 1964, however, when the Commission interviewed the Dealey Plaza grounds keeper. He commented, “…they have moved some of those signs. They have moved that R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign” (64). A photograph taken during the Secret Service re-enactment (Fif. 4-9) on Dec. 5, 1963, when compared to Zapruder frame 207 (Fig. 4-10) shows the following. First, the sign had been moved to the right and raised. Second, the angle of the sign to the camera differs from Zapruder’s. The sign’s new position is also shown when the FBI reconstruction photograph of May 24, 1964, (Fig. 4-11), is overlayed with the Secret Service photo of Dec. 5, 1963. The overlay (Fig. 4-12) was made by matching the tree (A), masonry holes (, and windows © in both. The FBI apparently tried to have the sign replaced to approximately where it was on Nov. 22, 1963. Note how much of the stand-ins can be seen (Fig. 4-11) as compared to frame 207 (Fig. 4-10). There is also a difference in appearance between the two signs: the sign in frame 207 (Fig. 4-10) has a medium grey tone while that in the Secret Service (Fig. 4-9) and FBI (Fig. 4-11) reconstructions is solid black. After May 24, 1964, the sign was removed, making any accurate reconstruction of the Zapruder film impossible (65). Altering Time The Secret Service produced the first re-enactment tests and surveys. These would be the basis of the information for both the FBI and the Commission, and thereby mislead them. On Nov. 25, 1963, the Secret Service made a survey in Dealey Plaza to establish bullet trajectories (66). Two days later, the Secret Service held its first re-enactment. Using a surveyor and the Zapruder film, an agent measured the distance from the eastern window ledge of the depository’s sixth floor to the car. The distance for the neck shot was given as 170 feet, the point at which the view of the car is blocked by the freeway sign. The head shot was stated as 260 feet. He claimed the point where Connally was shot was undeterminable (67). The Secret Service photographs of its re-enactment show the car at 170 and 260 feet; its map designates these two shots at frames 207 and 375, with frame 330 as the shot for Connally (68). Again, on Dec. 5, 1963, the Secret Service held another re-enactment. At that time, the car, according to photographs, was positioned at frames 207, 330, and 375. When this was put on a map, they co-ordinated with frames 207, 285, and 330 (69). A final version of the hits further compressed the time. The Warren Commission stated that the President was first hit between frames 210-225, and Connally was hit between frames 235-240. Frame 313 was the final hit (70). In short, the timing of the shots was compressed. This solved the problem of time that the film had created. Zapruder’s movie camera ran at 18 frames per second (71). The scenario rifle required a minimum of 2.3 seconds between shots, or 42 frames (72). The difference between the Commission’s designations of the first hit on the President and the hit on Connally was less than 42 frames, exceeding the rifles capability. If one shot hit both, however, then the Commission avoided the problem of having to deal with another gun and a conspiracy. But the altered film still left major problems unexplained by the single-bullet hypothesis: 1) the lack of reaction by the President’s guards, who were supposed to protect him; 2) the backward movement of the President’s head after he was struck at frame 313; and 3) Mrs. Kennedy’s crawling across the trunk in panic. Notes: 1) Abraham Zapruder, “Testimony of Abraham Zapruder [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 570. 2) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated June 4, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 5, p. 139. 3) Calculation by photo triangulation. 4) “…the Secret Service agent…must be able to hit the target under any and all conditions…” (C.B. Colby, Secret Service: History, Duties and Equipment, p. 20.) According to Merriman Smith, “All [agents on the White House Detail of the Secret Service] are crack shots with either hand. Their pistol marksmanship is tested on one of the toughest ranges in the country. The bull’s-eye of their target is about half the size of the one ordinarily used on police and Army ranges. They must qualify with an unusually high score every thirty days, and if any one of them – or any of the White House police, which falls under Secret Service jurisdiction – falls below a certain marksmanship standard, they are transferred. Agents must also qualify periodically firing from moving vehicles. This accounts for the requirement to shoot well with either hand. A right-handed agent might be clinging to a speeding car with that hand and have to shoot with the left.” (Timothy G. Smith (ed.), op. cit., p. 226.) In his testimony, Greer claimed he “…made a quick glance and back again,” over his right shoulder, at the time of the second shot. He stated, “My eyes [turned] slightly [to the right] more than my head. My eyes went more than my head around. I had a vision real quick of it.” (Greer, op. cit., v. 2, p. 118.) One study (1971) of the Zapruder film approximated the direction, clockwise, that the occupants faced in the limousine. In orientation, noon was the front of the car, 6 o’clock was on the trunk, 9 o’clock was the mid-point on the left, and 3 o’clock that on the right of the limousine. Greer was judged to be looking to the right and rear twice. He was in the 4:30 position from frames 282-290, the sequence when Connally is shot; in the 3:30-5 position from frames 303-316, the sequence with the fatal shot. Another study (1967), made without the film and working only from the frames, estimated Greer to be 40 degrees to his right beginning at frame 240 and extending to 80 degrees from frame 270 through frame 309 (309 was the last frame available to the researcher). (Ronald Christensen, “A Preliminary Analysis of the Pictures of the Kennedy Assassination,” p. 69.) 5) Shaneyfelt, loc. cit. 6) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885. ‘Album of black and white photographs of frames from the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films,’” in Hearings, v. 18, pp. 1-80. According to FBI Director Hoover, in a letter of Dec. 14, 1965, frames 314 and 315 were transposed in printing. Visually, it appears to reverse the direction of the head movement. 7) In a few of the more sophisticated available copies, splice marks were retouched out. A 16 mm version contained evidence of only one splice. 8) In a few of the more sophisticated copies, color change was consistent throughout the film A 16 mm version, in the Life magazine photo library, is of excellent quality, containing consistent color throughout. This copy, however, does contain evidence of a splice between frames 156-157. 9) Nix film. Muchmore film. 10) Dan Rather, loc. cit. 11) She stated, “And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. And then he sort of did that, put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap.” (President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Report of Proceedings, v. 48, June 5, 1964, p. 6814.) 12) Especially in Life magazine’s 4 x 5 transparency of this frame. 13) John Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 133. Nellie Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 147. Commission Document No. 188, p. 6. Kellerman, op. cit., v. 2, pp. 74, 78. In an interview with William R. Greer, Greer said, “…my back was covered with it.” 14) This area also displays optical enlargement, especially between frames 317 and 318 (magnification jumps from 1 to 1.3). 15) Dan Rather, loc. cit. 16) Modern Cinematographer, June 1969, pp. 566, 567, 568. Note: Connally testified, “I had seem what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in hospital in Dallas.” (Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 145.) 17) Abraham Zapruder, Commission Document No. 7 [dated Dec. 4, 1963],” p. 12. 18) Dan Rather, loc. cit. 19) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 751. 20) Dan Rather, loc. cit. 21) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885,” op. cit., v. 18, p. 19. Note: Life magazine later accepted the blame for this. It said that four frames “…had been accidentally destroyed by its photo lab technicians.” (New York Times, Jan. 30, 1967, p. 22.) 22) Commission Document No. 87, p. 434. 23) Interview with Orville O. Nix in film Rush to Judgment. 24) Commission Document No. 385, p. 70. FBI lab report says Nix’s camera was running at an average speed of 18.5 frames per second. 25) Marie Muchmore. Commission Document No. 735, pp. 124, 103. 26) Mary Moorman. Commission Document No. 5, p. 37. John Wiseman, “Decker Exhibit No. 5323. ‘Supplementary Investigation Report dated Nov. 23, 1963,’ within Dallas County Sheriff’s Office record…” in Hearings, v. 19, pp. 535-536. “Commission Exhibit No. 1426, ‘FBI report dated November 23, 1963, of interview of Mary Ann Moorman at Dallas, Tex. (CD 5, pp. 36-37),’” in Hearings, v. 22, p. 839. 27) “Commission Exhibit No. 1426,” loc. cit. 28) Interview with Jean L. Hill. 29) Ibid. 30) Philip L. Willis. Commission Document No. 1245, pp. 44-47. 31) Willis slide number five. 32) Altgens, op. cit., v. 7, p. 519. 33) ABC Television, Nov. 23, 9:00 a.m. Tom O’Brian, ABC News Director. 34) Of the amateurs, an 8 mm color film by Robert J. Hughes does show the depository with the limousine directly below the sixth floor “sniper’s nest.” The FBI examined this film and concluded there was no person in the window (Commission Document No. 205, p. 158.) In addition, “Itek Corporation, a photo-optical electronics firm, concluded the object in the window…was not a person.” (Life, Nov. 24, 1967, p. 88.) A polaroid photo taken by Jack Weaver, who was standing near Hughes at Main and Houston Streets, was also examined by the FBI with the same negative results (Ibid., p. 175). 35) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 571. 36) Ibid. 37) J. Herbert Sawyer, “Testimony of J. Herbert Sawyer [dated April 8, 1964],’” in Hearings, v. 6, p. 324. 38) Forrest V. Sorrels, op. cit., v. 7, p. 352. 39) Commission Document No. 1014, “Sorrels memo to S.S. Chief Rowley and S.S. Inspector Tom Kelley [dated Jan. 22, 1964].” 40) Dallas Police Department, “Commission Document No. 705. ‘Channel 2’…” op. cit., v. 17, p. 482. 41) Sorrels, loc. cit. 42) Affidavit of P. M. Chamberlain, Jr., Production Supervisor, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963. 43) Letter of Abraham Zapruder to C.D. Jackson, Publisher, Life magazine, dated Nov. 25, 1963. 44) Affidavit of Frank R. Sloan, Laboratory Manager, Jamieson Film Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963. 45) Affidavit of Tom Nulty, Production Foreman, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963. 46) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 575. 47) Commission Document No. 87, “Max D. Phillips, Note of transmittal [undated] 9:55 p.m.” According to Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, the disposition was “…one copy sent off to Washington and another given to Dallas police. Zapruder kept the original and one print…” (Richard B. Stolley, “What happened next…,” Esquire, November 1973, p. 135.) 48) Interview with Harry D. Holmes. 49) Inspector Kelley. Commission Document No. 1014, op. cit. 50) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138. 51) Agreement between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963. 52) Contract between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963. Record of physical possession is confused. Zapruder’s agreement of Nov. 23, 1963, reads: “You [Life] agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print.” Life’s agent, Richard B. Stolley, claimed he “…picked up the original of the film and the one remaining copy…” after the agreement was signed. (Stolley, loc. cit.) 53) Ibid. 54) Life, Nov. 29, 1963, p. 24. Time, Nov. 29, 1963, and Dec. 6, 1963, made no mention of the film although it printed four frames in the latter issue (pp. 33A, 33B.) 55) The issue dated for Nov. 29, 1963, was to have been on sale by Nov. 26, 1963. Although, according to Life, “The editors said that time limitations did not permit reproductions in color,” they also said “…they were unable last night [Nov. 23, 1963] to give precise details as to what the film showed but that they were assured that it depicted the impact of the bullets that struck Mr. Kennedy.” (New York Times, Nov. 24, 1963, p. 5.) 56) Life, Dec. 13, 1963. The Memorial issue is unpaginated. 57) Lifton (ed.), op. cit., p. 72. 58) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138. 59) Life, Oct. 2, 1964, pp. 43-46. 60) Researcher Paul Hoch determined that five versions were issued by Life by comparing the text and captions 3, 5, 6, and 8 on p. 42; picture 6 on p. 45; the text in column 2 and caption of line 3 on p. 47; and 4 captions, lines 1, 9, 13 and 18, on p. 48. Using this method, the authors discovered a sixth version. Vincent J. Salandria noted three versions (“A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes the Shots, Trajectories, and Wounds,” Liberation, January 1965, pp. 6-7.) 61) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit. 62) “Motion Pictures and Film Strips,” Catalog of Copyright Entries, Third Series, v. 21, pts. 12-13, no. 1, January-June 1967, p. 19. Though the film is at least 27 seconds in length, Life, on Oct. 2, 1964, described it as “…an eight second strip…” In the Catalog of Copyright Entries, in 1967, it is listed as 10 seconds in length (p. 42). Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, claimed it was “…seven seconds of film” (Stolley, loc. cit.) He also said, “…in the beginning of the film…pictured some children at play…” (Ibid., p. 134), a sequence not shown on any film made available to the authors. 63) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit. 64) Emmett J. Hudson, “Testimony of Emmett J. Hudson [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 562. 65) An official use of the film, other than by the Warren Commission, was made by the CIA. It wanted to borrow the FBI’s copy”…for training purposes.” (J. Edgar Hoover, Letter of Dec. 4, 1964.) 66) Dallas Morning News, Nov. 26, 1963, Sect. 4, p. 7. 67) Agent John J. Howlett. Commission Document No. 5, p. 117. 68) “Commission Exhibit No. 585. ‘Surveyor’s plat of the Assassination Scene,’” in Hearings, v. 17, p. 262. 69) Ibid. 70) Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, pp. 105-109. 71) Ibid., p. 97. Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 153. “Commission Exhibit No. 2444. ‘FBI report of FBI Laboratory examination of various items relating to the assassination (CD 206, pp. 45-61),’” in Hearings, v. 25, p. 576. 72) Report of the President’s Commission, loc. cit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 BOOK REVIEWby Richard J. DellaRosa The film's provenance is rather hazy at best and it is doubtful that it would have been admissible in a court of law if there ever had been a trial of Lee Oswald. Lee Oswald certainly would not have objected to admitting the Z-Film into evidence. He would have asked to have it marked EXHIBIT A for the Defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Now if someone could find a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" it would help. http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...ton&f=false Thanks Michael, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. How come I missed this? Ah, yes, now I remember, I got to the part about me and John Judge meeting Don Norton at University of Dayton, but here its says here it was in Toledo, a minor mistake, but still one that should be corrected. Was David Lifton's article "Pig on a Leash" published anywhere else before or after TGZFH? Is it available on line in full, rather than in this version, which is missing half its pages? I take it that the references to the Hawkeye Works is on p. 387 and 388 but 388 is missing. Can someone copy these pages and references and post them? Someone should also copy the entire article and post it if it to be part of the record, even if only a footnote. It should be called a biography of Bob Groden. And hey, the pig was real, it wasn't fake. Bill Kelly Hey, Bill...buy a copy of TGZFH. You can get one on Amazon USED very cheap. Jack I had a copy Jack, but a few years ago I gave up on JFK research and gave most of my books and papers to John Judge in DC. Now I'm back, without my library. And someday I'm going to enjoy telling the story that brought me back. In the meantime, I'd like to know what Lifton said about the CIA 450 doc that Paul Hoch found, that's in his article "Pig on a Leash," as published in MIDP p. 387-388-?, because it is cited by Horne in IARRB as the first place that the name Hawkeye Works was published, thus releasing it of its classified status. And you are probably the source for the story about me, John Judge and Mae meeting Don Norton in Toledo. While Toledo is up the pike north of Dayton, we met Don in at the University of Dayton, where John and I were students, another interesting story. BK I think I have always used DAYTON. I don't recall saying Toledo. If I did, it was a memory lapse. Jack Hey Jack, I don't know where it came from, but in Fetzer's book GZFH, there's a tidbit about Norton and the mention of Judge, me and Mae meeting him in Toledo. It didn't come from me or Judge since we both know where we went to school. It must have come from a third party who knew the story but got the Toledo part wrong. Toledo is where Ken Rahn had his meeting of Non-Conspirasits United. Another minor mistake that Fetzer should correct in his next edition. Speaking of Mae, did you see the bloger that says that John Hinckley DATED Mae's daughter? I find that pretty incredibile, and asked John Judge to check it out and he sent the article to Mae's daughter to see if it is true. Also, it would be nice if Prof. Fetzer or someone with the book TGZFH would post Lifton's chapter "Pig on a Leash" or even just the pages that mention the NPIC, McMahon and the Hawkeye Works, since it is now recognized as the first place the word "Hawkeye Works" was published. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 BOOK REVIEWby Richard J. DellaRosa The film's provenance is rather hazy at best and it is doubtful that it would have been admissible in a court of law if there ever had been a trial of Lee Oswald. Lee Oswald certainly would not have objected to admitting the Z-Film into evidence. He would have asked to have it marked EXHIBIT A for the Defense. Why speculate as to an Oswald trial of the Lone Patsy, when it is still possible to enter the Zap film into evidence as Exhibit A in a grand jury? No speculation about it. Of course it could be admitted into evidence in a Grand Jury, as would Homer McMahon's hearsay story of the "Hawkeye Works" at the NPIC, since hearsay is admissible in grand juries, just not at trial. It either is admissible as evidence, or someone should be indicted for tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now