Zapruder film-Frame count-NPIC

Gary Murr · October 28, 2007

Gentlemen:

When I first saw Mr. Healey's original question, I was tempted to respond, having spent a considerable amount of time studying this particular subject matter in conjunction with a chapter in my forthcoming book that deals with the entire NPIC-CIA-SS-Zapruder film debate. I decided, however, to watch the thread unfold, if you will, to see if anyone else would offer up an answer to any of Mr. Healey's questions. Unfortunately that has not occurred and "personality" conflicts have become embedded within the thread itself. So be it. Nonetheless, I will indicate the following, in response to the original question posed by Mr. Healey, with the caveat that the entire matter is covered in a chapter I have in my book that runs to over 100 pages in length, and thus I will apologize, in advance, for the brevity of my response.

The Zapruder frame count that is universally accepted and utilized by all those who study and refer to the film by frame number, the system that starts with frame 1, excluding the few personal scenes shot at the beginning of the roll by Abraham Zapruder, and ending with frame 486, was assigned to the film byFBI SA Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 29, 1964. This excercise on the part of Shaneyfelt was conducted as a result of a direct request by Norman Redlich of the Warren Commission staff. I do not know which specific FBI generated copy of the Zapruder film Shaneyfelt used; all I do know, to a certainty, is that the FBI produced more than two copies of the film for their own use from a first generation copy of the film supplied to them by the Secret Service the day after the assasination. I suspect that the copy Shaneyfelt utilized was the same one that he and a select group of Warren Commission staff members had studied both prior to the Redlich request and for months after the Redlich request. I will also indicate the following, and again I hate to be annoyingly repetative, but it is covered in great detail you-know-where- in my forthcoming book. Lyndal Shaneyfelt was NOT responsible for the "accepted" and universally utilized average Zapruder film run speed of 18.3 fps. His methodolgy applied in his study of the film arrived at an average that was close, but it was not 18.3 fps. Likewise, Mr. Shaneyfelt was NOT the FBI Lab employee who originally examined the Zapruder film AND camera and, in essence, Shaneyfelt became the FBI "expert" on the Zapruder film strictly by accident for reasons that are explained, in detail,.... you know where.

One of the (fatal?) flaws prevalent in the research of those who see the hideous hand of the CIA in some sort of nefariously instantaneous plot to alter the film of Abraham Zapruder before the body of the slain President barely had a chance to grow cold is that they see the entire CIA Document 450-NPIC incident as a SINGULAR entity/occurrence over the weekend of the assassination. This simply is not true. As I am able to prove in my forthcoming work, the entire NPIC-CIA-SS-Zapruder film scenario was not one but three "separate" but related incidents that evolved not over days, or weeks, but months. I exchanged correspondence on this issue with Douglas Horne for, as a complete reading of all of his ARRB generated memoranda reveal, he suspected as much, but was unable to follow through to fruition on these same suspicions for a variety of reason's most of which were beyond his control. I also believe I have discovered who the mysteries agent/Zapruder film delivery boy "Smith" of the Secret Service was, but I will leave that for those who want to read more.

FWIW

Gary Murr

David G. Healy · October 28, 2007

'Gary Murr' wrote:

[...]

The Zapruder frame count that is universally accepted and utilized by all those who study and refer to the film by frame number, the system that starts with frame 1, excluding the few personal scenes shot at the beginning of the roll by Abraham Zapruder, and ending with frame 486, was assigned to the film byFBI SA Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 29, 1964.

dgh: January 29th .... hmm, considering NPIC testimony (taken by Doug Horne) states the NPIC guys who worked with the Z-frames (as they said late the 22nd, certainly that weekend), their working doc's of that weekend show the Z-frames clearly numbered and fps determined? Coincidence shows us Shaneyfelt used the same numbering sequence 9 weeks later? Fascinating....

This excercise on the part of Shaneyfelt was conducted as a result of a direct request by Norman Redlich of the Warren Commission staff. I do not know which specific FBI generated copy of the Zapruder film Shaneyfelt used; all I do know, to a certainty, is that the FBI produced more than two copies of the film for their own use from a first generation copy of the film supplied to them by the Secret Service the day after the assasination. I suspect that the copy Shaneyfelt utilized was the same one that he and a select group of Warren Commission staff members had studied both prior to the Redlich request and for months after the Redlich request.

dgh: again, how did those frame numbers show up on NPIC documents the weekend of the assassination? BTW, there were more copies floating around within 2 weeks of the assassination than Carter had little liver pills -- I suspect that's one of the reasons (amongst others) why the 6th floor museum is collecting what hasn't been destroyed over the years.

I will also indicate the following, and again I hate to be annoyingly repetative, but it is covered in great detail you-know-where- in my forthcoming book. Lyndal Shaneyfelt was NOT responsible for the "accepted" and universally utilized average Zapruder film run speed of 18.3 fps. His methodolgy applied in his study of the film arrived at an average that was close, but it was not 18.3 fps.

dgh: no one said he was responsible for determing the camera speed, however the FBI was responsible along with B&H in determining the gate assembly speed of the camera. He takes claim to *numbering* the Z-frames. Frankly, I hope your above is correct. you see January 29th 1964 would allow 9 weeks for film alteration... the audience for any alteration of the Z-film would be quite small, in fact the Warren Commission ONLY!

Likewise, Mr. Shaneyfelt was NOT the FBI Lab employee who originally examined the Zapruder film AND camera and, in essence, Shaneyfelt became the FBI "expert" on the Zapruder film strictly by accident for reasons that are explained, in detail,.... you know where.

dgh: I seriously doubt "by accident", in fact I find that nonsense...

One of the (fatal?) flaws prevalent in the research of those who see the hideous hand of the CIA in some sort of nefariously instantaneous plot to alter the film of Abraham Zapruder before the body of the slain President barely had a chance to grow cold is that they see the entire CIA Document 450-NPIC incident as a SINGULAR entity/occurrence over the weekend of the assassination. This simply is not true. As I am able to prove in my forthcoming work, the entire NPIC-CIA-SS-Zapruder film scenario was not one but three "separate" but related incidents that evolved not over days, or weeks, but months. I exchanged correspondence on this issue with Douglas Horne for, as a complete reading of all of his ARRB generated memoranda reveal, he suspected as much, but was unable to follow through to fruition on these same suspicions for a variety of reason's most of which were beyond his control. I also believe I have discovered who the mysteries agent/Zapruder film delivery boy "Smith" of the Secret Service was, but I will leave that for those who want to read more.

dgh: all sounds fascinating Gary -- unfortunately we have Shaneyfelt lying or we have the good folks at the NPIC lying, after all how could they be working with a Z-film, on the weekend of the assassination, with Z-frame numbers as we know them today -- Then we have this FBI guy (Shaneyfelt) who allegedly assigned numbers to the film frames (by your account) around Jan 29th, 1964 -- some 9 weeks later.... What is true, Gary? Shaneyfelt or the NPIC number the frames.... Doug Horne comment on that?

Oh, didn't Shaneyfelt do the initial Z-film recreation (for the FBI/SS) on Elm Street within weeks of the assassination? I believe he's (Shaneyfelt) pictured in the TSBD snipers window along with a rifle with a camera mounted on it.... Not bad for a regular ole FBI grunt! AND who Smith is is irrelevant to this thread. FWIW...

FWIW

Gary Murr

Edited October 28, 2007 by David G. Healy

Jack White · October 28, 2007

Why should we trust ANYONE who is not observant enough to

spell Mr. HEALY's name as HEALEY? What confidence does that

give us that your other observations are accurate?

And what does it matter that you have a chapter of great length

about a certain subject? Accuracy, NOT LENGTH, is the objective.

And maybe you have quoted interviews correctly...but were

the people you interviewed telling the truth?

Duh.

Jack

Bill Miller · October 28, 2007

Jack,

You say the dumbest things sometimes. Out of all Gary Murr said, you think it should not be trusted because he added one extra "e" to Healy's name. Why not heed the advice of Martin Luther King, Jr. when he said that a person should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin .... except replace the word 'character' with the word 'post' and 'not the color of their skin' with 'not because of a typo or the misspelling of Healy's name'.

Bill

Edited October 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

Gary Murr · October 28, 2007

I apologize for inadvertently spelling Mr. Healy's name incorrectily; it was not intentional. It is rather obvious, on the other hand, that Mr. Healy was never truly interested in an answer to the question he originally posed in the first place. And it is painfully obvious that he has not studied the entire record assembled by Douglas Horne (and others) and the CIA-NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film. Had he been he would realize that at no time did Mr. McMahon or Mr. Hunter indicate, to anyone, that they were responsible for the "working documents" that do contain the Zapruder film frame count under discussion. In truth they did indicate that this same documentation had been generated at a later point in time "for the Warren Commission" by "mensuration experts" employed elsewhere by NPIC. Mr. Hunter knew the name of at least one of these individuals but refused to reveal it to Mr. Horne for reasons that Doug Horne would be glad to reveal to Mr. Healy, should he, Mr. Healy, care to contact Mr. Horne. And it is even more obvious that Mr. Healy knows nothing about the history of the various reconstructions generated in Dealey Plaza after the assassination or he would not have written the following idiotic statement: "Oh, didn't Shaneyfelt do the initial Z-film recreation (for the FBI/SS) on Elm Street within weeks of the assassination? I believe he's (Shaneyfelt) pictured in the TSBD window along with a rifle with a camera mounted on it ..." The FBI never generated "the initial Z-film recreation...on Elm Street within weeks of the assassination." In fact the FBI never had any intention of generating a Zapruder film recreation in Deaey Plaza at any point in time after the assassination. The photograph of which I assume you are speaking was actually taken on May 24, 1964, some six months after the assassination, and the individual pictured "with a rifle with a camera mounted on it..." is SA Robert Frazier, not Lyndal Shaneyfelt. This particular reconstruction was done for the Warren Commission and involved the participation of members of the FBI, Secret Service, the Dallas police force, and the survey team of Mr. Robert West and some of his associates. The Warren Commission's "interests" at this same reconstruction were, in turn, protected by Arlen Specter, Norman Redlich, and J. Lee Rankin.

From my perspective this is the end of this discussion. After all, I would not want to clutter up this particular thread with anymore untrustworthy comments.

Gary Murr

Thomas H. Purvis · October 28, 2007

David:

The FBI was considerably involved in what is referred to as the SS assassination re-enactment and survey work of December 2, 3, & 4th, 1963.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Leo J. Gauthier.

Mr. SPECTER. And by whom are you employed, sir?

Mr. GAUTHIER. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. SPECTER. And what is your rank with the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Inspector. I am in charge of the Bureau's exhibit section, where we prepare investigative aids, consisting of diagrams, charts, maps, three-dimensional exhibits, in connection with the presentation of cases in court.

Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Survey Plat for this work of course being that survey plat which demonstrates the impact point of each of the three shots fired, with the Z313 location being the second shot, and the location at stationing 4+95/aka in front of James Altgens position being the third shot impact point.

Thusly, the FBI was highly involved in this work.

Then, on 2/7/64, the FBI "re-did" the survey work and assassination re-enactment. However, the third shot/Altgens impact point was still left in it's original location.

There is of course no "official" known record as to who from the FBI was advising on these, as few persons were even aware of the existence of such re-enactments and surveys.

As regards Shaneyfelt with the rifle at the window, (CE 887)

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0050b.htm

This photograph was purportedly taken during the WC work of May 1964.

Personally, this photo was one of those which had "escaped" my attention until such time as Mr. West brought out that "no one could have accurately fired that rifle, the way that they had it jacked up".

Thus, I never took the time to get back to Mr. West to verify if this photo, CE887, was what he actually saw.

But, I would assume that it is when one looks at the photo and compares it with what Mr. West informed me.

(to be continued)

Thomas H. Purvis · October 28, 2007

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0050b.htm

Frame# 161

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0051a.htm

Frame# 166

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm

Altered Survey Data (remember)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=28

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Since it was not practical to stop the projector when using the original of the Zapruder film, because of the possibility of damage to the film, Mr. Orth volunteered to prepare 35-mm. color slides directly from the original movie of all of the pertinent frames of the assassination which were determined to be frames 171 through 434.

Normally, one would find it difficult to make "composite" photo's which compared the WC work with the actual Z-film frames, if one were utilizing slides received from Time/Life, and these slides began with what was supposedly Z171.

There are many, many mistakes!

Gary Murr · October 28, 2007

Hi Tom:

As you are well aware, I have the greatest respect for your work on the various reconstructions carried out in Dealey Plaza, and in particular your endeavours to contact and thus communicate with Robert West, among others. However, I am not aware of any documentation which directly supports direct FBI cooperation on the matter of the Secret Service reconstruction(s) conducted in Dealey Plaza during the first week of December, 1963. Yes, I understand the Leo J. Gauthier was in Dallas during that particular week, accompanied as he was by three members of his Exhibits Division staff. Gauthier actually left the area on December 4 while the members of his staff stayed behind for two more days to finish their work. The question posed of Specter to Gauthier in the quote you cited above refers, as far as I can tell, to the construction of the two scale models generated by the Bureau. As fas as I know, and you can correct me on this if I am wrong, the SS reconstructions of this week were just that, reconstructions carried out by the SS for the SS. I am not naive enough to believe that agents of these two agencies were not aware of the presence of each other in the area during the first week of December 1963, (indeed there exists documentation which indicates that at least SS - SA John J. Howlett was interviewed by members of the Dallas Field Office of the FBI on the matter of SS reconstruction) but surviving documentation generated by both parties in the aftermath of their visits to the area reflect to very different agenda's. However, perhaps Mr. West indicated directly to you that Gauthier and/or members of his Washington based staff directly sought out West and the SS for help with their project. I do not have the time herein to examine the documentation that was generated by the two agencies involved in the weeks after their December 1963 visit to Dealey Plaza, and heavan fobid that I refer to my forthcoming book, replete as it apparently is with untrustworthy investigation, on this subject matter. All I do know is that I, like you, know that both the FBI and SS position the fatal shot along Elm Street at a point that is totally incongruous to the eventual solution as proferred by members of the Warren Commission staff. However, as you are also aware, the FBI and SS agreed to disagree as to where specifically this impact occurred.

I am intigued by your revelation of an FBI survey conducted in Dealey Plaza on February 7, 1964, with the apparent aid of Robert West. I have to admit that I was not aware of the existence of this specific event, and plead ignorance of its contents. If you would care to enlighten me further, by private e-mail exchange, I would be greatful.

Regarding just who is posed with the rifle in the photograph discussed in this thread, I based my answer upon identification of the individual given to me by Harold Weisberg, someone who had to sit across the table from both Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier, and on more than once occasion, during his FOIA endeavours to gain the release of documentation generated by the Bureau on the assasination event.

Regards,

Gary Murr

David G. Healy · October 28, 2007

might want to hold up publication for a bit....

David G. Healy · October 28, 2007

thanks Tom -- agreed! I knew you'd catch this thread...

David

Thomas H. Purvis · October 28, 2007

Gary;

1. The information in reference to "who" is at the window in CE885 is gained merely from the WC report, which states that it is Shaneyfelt.

Which, based on other mistakes of the WC, could also be a mistake on their part as well.

2. Initially, Thomas H. Kelley of the SS was placed in charge of the SS responsibilities in Dallas.

3. Initially, James R. Malley of the FBI was placed in charge of the FBI responsibilities in Dallas.

4. As indicated, the December 2, 3, & 4th, 1963 survey work and assassination re-enactment was primarily the responsibility of the US Secret Service, and specifically, Edward E. Moore, with John Joe Howlett, and was done in conjunction/cooperation and assistance of the FBI.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On most occasions, Mr. Gauthier of the FBI was present, I was present, Mr. Malley of the FBI was present. Inspector Kelley from Secret Service, and Mr. John Howlett from Secret Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And herein lies much of the secrets as to the "how" we got from three-shots/three hits, to the WC only one impact location known.

And, although from all known information, the SS (&FBI) work of/up to December 5, 1963 appears to be quite accurate, then things began to change.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscamall.htm

Mr. MCDONALD. Now, prior to December 12, the Bureau released its report on the assassination?

Mr. MALLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. Malley, yesterday, Mr. Kelly, with the Secret Service, testified that on December 9, 1963, they were instructed to turn over the assassination to the FBI. To what extent was this investigation continued by the FBI?

Mr. MALLEY. Are you referring to what Secret Service was doing or what?

Mr. FORD. No; when they turned the investigation over to the FBI on December 9, after receiving orders from the White House, to what extent was this investigation continued from that point on?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscakell.htm

Mr. FORD. When the FBI took control of the assassination after December 9 I think you said,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point in time, we had an assassination survey and re-enactment, as well as survey plat, which indicated three shots fired, and three hits, with the last impact being down in front of James Altgens position, the second impact being within a foot or so of Z313, and the first shot impact being up around the Z212/214 location.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such an analysis?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thereafter, the FBI took complete control of the Investigation and on 2/7/64, they conducted their own assassination survey and re-enactment*

This work, left the first and third shot impact points in their respective SS determined position and attempted to move the Z313 impact point some 24.5 feet back up Elm St., well prior to the Presidential Limo having even passed the position of Mary Moorman/Jean Hill/& the first yellow mark on the curb of Elm St.

This, JEH claimed was where JBC was hit.

This lie, did not fly, as there was absolutely no way to coverup the Z313 impact, and in event that JBC had been hit at 24.5 feet prior to Z313, then Z313 most certainly could not have come from the Carcano rifle.

This "lie" by JEH & Company was soon discovered, and that is why you have never seen or been made aware of it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscamall.htm

Mr. MCDONALD. I am looking at a memo dated November 26, 1963, from Mr. Evans to Mr. Belmont and it is titled "The Assassination of President Kennedy," and it says--this is dated 4 days later, "From the facts disclosed in our investigation, there is no question that we can submit in our report convincing evidence, beyond any doubt, showing Oswald was the man who killed President Kennedy."

Then at the bottom of this page there is handwriting, which has been identified as Mr. Hoover's. And in the last line Mr. Evans is

making reference that a case of this magnitude cannot be fully investigated in a week's time. And Mr. Hoover has written underneath, "just how long do you estimate it will take."

Then under that he went on to write, "it seems to me we have the basic facts now."

Again, we are 4 days after the assassination. You were in Dallas at the time.

Mr. McDONALD. I will quote one more memorandum to you, and that is dated 29 November 1963, which is found in the Senate Intelligence Committee's, the Church Committee's, Book 5 Report on page 34. In it, the memorandum is by Mr. Hoover, recounting a telephone conversation he had that day with President Johnson. And he says, "I advised the President that we hoped to have the investigation wrapped up today but probably won't have it before the first of the week, as another angle had developed. Again we are getting an example of at the top level the case being in a sense completed.

Now, again, from your Dallas perspective does this jibe with what you were doing in Dallas?

Mr. MALLEY. Well, again, I say that when people say that they hoped to have it completed and so on, I don't think for a minute they were talking about having every facet fully and exhaustively investigated. I think what they are saying is that, based on the information that was available at that time, the essential facts of the investigation had been developed. It doesn't mean it was over by any means.

Chairman STOKES. Let me read to you some excerpts from an interview with former Assistant Director Sullivan that was conducted by another House committee in 1975 after which I will ask for your comment.

In the interview, Mr. Sullivan was asked to recall Director Hoover's relationship to the Warren Commission. In the interview, Mr. Sullivan stated that Mr. Hoover, and I now quote Mr. Sullivan,

"did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence, that he did show marked interest in limiting the scope of it or circumventing the scope of it by taking any action that might result in neutralizing it."

In this same interview, Mr. Sullivan went on further and said this, and I again quote "From what I saw and what I heard, what I understood, he, Mr. Hoover, was not pleased about the creation of the Warren Commission, No. 1. No. 2, he was not interested in seeing the Warren Commission conduct an exhaustive investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy because he thought that the FBI investigation was adequate."

Chairman STOKES. Mr. Malley, let me again quote Mr. Sullivan during the course of interview. He says, "It is my understanding from conversations on this subject, that he, Hoover, did not want the Warren Commission to conduct an exhaustive investigation for fear that it would discover important and relevant facts that we in the FBI had not discovered in our investigation. Therefore, it would be greatly embarrassing to him and damaging to his career and to the FBI as a whole."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need I say more?

*P.S. For David.

When the same "actors" wear the same clothing and drive the same car, it is often difficult to tell if the photographic record of the performance date was 2/7/64 or May 24, 1964.

Gary Murr · October 28, 2007

Hi Tom:

As always I enjoy your responses and, no, you need not say more. As you should be aware, I "understand" better than most. This particular thread need progress no further for it has been sidetracked from its original train of thought, and Mr. Healy's original question, which I have previously answered.

Whether it was intentional or not, I would just like to make one comment. Your positioning of the Shaneyfelt quote, "Mr. SHANEYFELT. On most occasions, Mr. Gauthier of the FBI was present, I was present, Mr. Malley of the FBI was present. Inspector Kelley from Secret Service, and Mr. John Howlett from Secret Service..." would seem to leave the reader with the impression that Shaneyfelt was indicating that these individuals were, "on most occasions," present at the various Dealey Plaza reconstructions outlined by yourself elsewhere in this thread, and indeed at other points in this forum. However, taken in the entire context from which this answer is borrowed, the June 4, 1964 testimony session of Lyndal Shaneyfelt, this particular answer offered by Shaneyfelt was in response to a question posited by Arlen Specter regarding who was present at the lengthy Zapruder/Nix film analysis sessions convened by members of the Warren Commission staff (rather than reconstructive efforts in Dealey Plaza). There were, in total, seven such analytical film sessions, which occurred between January 27, 1964 and the last such session, held on the morning of Tuesday, April 21, 1964. Only Lyndal Shaneyfelt and James Malley were present at all seven sessions. Gauthier attended three of these sessions, Inspector Thomas Kelley four of these sessions, and John Joe Howlett was present for five of the sessions.

As I stated in an earlier response, I would be most greatful if you could enlighten me further regarding the specific FBI reconstruction that occurred in Dealey Plaza on February 7, 1964.

Regards,

Gary Murr

Thomas H. Purvis · October 29, 2007

Gary;

The FBI survey & filmed/photographed re-enactment which took place on 2/7/64, consumed most of the day.

Somewhere, I have some extremely limited information on it, as it too was made to almost disappear.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0144b.htm

CE585 is in fact the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 in which the impact point for the last shot remained down in front of James Altgens position, and the Z313/aka second shot impact point was moved back up Elm St. some 24.5 feet, which is prior to the Presidential Limo even passing Mary Moorman/Jean Hill/the first yellow curb mark.

This is why Eisenberg told Ronald Simmons NOT to utilize the distance figures on this plat.

Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?

Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?

Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are.

The actual figures from the FBI 2/7/64 survey plat are: (slant distance/flat distance)

Shot#1:---------------184 ft/ 171 ft-------Impact slightly past mid-point behind Stemmons sign.

Shot#2:---------------242 ft/ 232 ft-------Impact approximately 15 feet prior to yellow curb mark @ (Moorman/Hill)

Shot#3:---------------294 ft/ 285 ft-------Impact in front of James Altgens

The only difference in the above (FBI) survey plat and the actual SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63 being that on the SS

Survey Plat:

Shot#2:--------------267 ft/ 257 ft--------impact at Z313*

*The SS street impact elevation for the Z313 shot was elevation 418.35

The WC street impact elevation for the Z313 shot was elevation 418. 48

Thus, one can see the absolute close proximity as to what the SS had, on 12/5/63 determined, and what the WC had no choice but to also go with in regards to the fact that the Z313 impact could not be made to completely disappear, as was the attempt by the FBI on 2/7/64.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?

and then to fire--at the first target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0139a.htm

Unknown to most, Melvin Eisenberg let several "Cats out of the Bag"!

His drawing of March 27, 1964 (pre-WC Survey) has the street elevation of 418 for the second shot fired.

He could not have known this unless he also had access to the actual SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, as the FBI Survey Plat (CE585) contains a street elevation of 419.07 for the second shot, which is the location where the FBI had moved the second shot back up Elm St.

In fact, since the WC was in complete possession of the previous survey plats, (SS & FBI), which both show the same impact point for the first shot, as well as the same impact point for the last shot (down in front of Altgens), and the only difference being the Z313 impact point, it would certainly make one wonder as to exactly why the WC could not determine the impact point of anything but Z313 and thusly had to derive "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

Not to mention of course that they also determined that there was nothing past Frame#334 of the Zapruder film worth looking at, along with attempting to avoid questioning of James Altgens, and then, on paperwork, indicating that James Altgens was up on Elm St at a point between Jean Hill/Mary Moorman/first yellow curb mark, and the TSDB.

Hope that is not more than you wanted to know.

Tom

P.S. SS Agent John Joe Howlett was involved in the work, and received a copy of the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64.

P.P.S. The Slant/Slope distance for the first shot impact, as determined by Time/Life, was 170 feet.

at the first target, being at 175 feet

William Kelly · December 1, 2009

No, the NPIC is not an individual witness who can be called, but there were three different men on the CIA payroll who worked there, one of whom saw the ARRB hearing on the Z-film on C-Span - one of the few public hearings the ARRB held, and contacted them.

He claimed to have made enlargements of select frames of the original Z-film, along with his supervisor, both of whom were interviewed by the ARRB, after getting clearances from the CIA.

They reported that the Secret Service agent who delivered the film, and ordered the enlargements, for briefing purposes, said the film was developed at the Hawkeye Works, at Kodak, in Rochester, New York.

While the CIA tried to keep the very name "Hawkeye Works" secret, as it is a classified name as well as a classified photo lab, others had published the name and Horne was released from his security oath in even mentioning the name of the place.

Another CIA official, who rose to become the senior photo analysis at the CIA, and who wrote books on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the CIA's photo trickery lab, also made enlargements of the original Z-film at the NPIC on a different day, using a different "original" film.

They both couldn't be original, and both films were described as being different styles of film, without regard to their contents.

If you Google Hawkeye Works, you can get a history of the Brownie Hawkeye camera, and the 100 year history of the Eastman Kodak company, but if you look deeper, you will find that the Kodak company was one of three major defense contractors (Raython, Lockheed & ITEK being the other), who were involved, and are still involved in the super-secret NRO, especially the early flights of CORONA, the first spy satellite.

The very name of the Hawkeye Works is classified because the film from the early CORONA satellies (1963) were returned to earth by parachute, and picked up in flight by a plane that scooped it up before it landed, and delivered it to the Hawkeye Works lab at Kodak in Rochester, NY.

This is the same super secret CIA lab that reportedly "developed" the Zapruder film before it was delivered to the NPIC for select frames to be enlarged.

While those who have been claiming that the Z-film was altered, and pointing to the NPIC as the place, it is now clear that the Z-film was processed, "reprocessed" at the Hawkeye Works before it was sent to the NPIC.

Now just like the NPIC, the Hawkeye Works at Kodak's Rochester NY HQ, as an institution, has people who worked there, who can and should be questioned about these things.

And as I have apologized to Jack White in another thread for not agreeing with his earlier analysis of the Z-film, I'd like to apologize to David Healey for not paying closer attention to what he was saying, and that I was wrong. Maya culpa.

I don't know what they changed as far as content, - cutting out the turn at the curve, or the stopping of the car, or the gore of the head shot(s), but the Z-films were at one time over the assassination weekend at the super-secret CIA-DOD Hawkeye Works lab in Rochester New York, where they also worked on the U2 and CORONA satellite photos.

What they did there I don't know, but it certainly destroys the provenance of the film as legitimate evidence, but can now be used to determine who was responsible for the tampering with evidence and the obstruction of justice that stems from these facts.

Bill Kelly

Zapruder film-Frame count-NPIC

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment