Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
William Kelly

Horne Responds To Zavada

Recommended Posts

Zavada writes Critique of Doug Horne

Roland J. Zavada

26 May 2010

Mr. Douglas P. Horne, Author

Re: Comments on Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery

I have been made aware of and acquired Volume IV of your fivevolume work: "Inside The ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD".

I was deeply saddened in reading your dissertation to find that a mutually respected professional relationship had degraded to find you implying that I would comprise my personal integrity to distort the truth of my factual findings as an alleged cover for my former employer – Kodak.

It now appears that your analysis and interpretation of inconsistencies in of the JFK medical evidence has distorted your logic and caused you to warp truthful findings and impugn the integrity of others including Mr. Zapruder himself.

A factual, truthful and expanded logical and expanded logical analysis to all of your perceived weaknesses and limitations in my report exceeds the time and effort I care to expend in response. Further, I have faith that the readership will be able to comprehend that: rather than convincing them that the impossible occurred and the film was altered; your updating of activities that occurred with the CIA at NPIC affirms the Zapruder films held at NARA are authentic.

My appended comments are formatted as a series of issues. You have interlocked several researchers of the Zapruder Film with your analysis of my report and therefore I have copied them in my comments to you.

Doug, you have forgotten my oft quoted comment from Marshall McLuhan that: The medium is the message; and that the form of the medium, 8mm film, embeds itself with the limitation that it can not be altered as perceived by you and others.

cc: Most Z-film Researchers mentioned in Chapter IV analysis to all of you

Cover Letter: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-052610-cvr.pdf

Report: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

Horne Responds

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

May 29th

My long chapter on the history of the Zapruder film, and the evidence for its apparent alteration (in order to hide the fact that President Kennedy was killed by multiple shooters in a crossfire, as he was driven into an expertly arranged ambush on Elm Street, on November 22, 1963), is Chapter 14 of my five-volume book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," and appears in Volume IV of that work, which can be purchased at Amazon.com (keywords "Horne JFK").

In Chapter 14 I take to task many of the conclusions reached by retired Kodak employee Roland J. ("Rollie") Zavada, who was rehired as a consultant by Kodak to perform pro bono work for the ARRB during 1997 and 1998. That work included a limited authenticity study, of which I am quite critical in my Chapter 14.

I just received from Rollie himself a 33-page rebuttal to my Zapruder film chapter, in which he takes exception to many of my criticisms, arguments, and assertions. In his cover letter, dated May 26, 2010, Rollie states that he has mailed copies of his 33-page report to many of those mentioned in Chapter 14, which surely must include Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, and Gary Mack. With the sure knowledge that his rebuttal will soon appear on the internet in various venues, I hereby offer my own comments on his paper.

Rollie's need to defend himself is not an unexpected development, and came as no surprise. What does surprise me is that it is so weakly argued, and incomplete.

Much of his paper consists of hairsplitting, in a feeble attempt to defend the flawed methodology he employed in the report he delivered at the eleventh hour to the ARRB in late September of 1998.

Most of it appears to be a grandfatherly scolding, in which Rollie says, essentially---I am paraphrasing here---"You must trust me, I know more than you, and the technology did not exist to successfully alter the Zapruder film without detection, and create an undetectable forgery or facsimile of it or any other 8 mm films in 1963; and even if the film was altered, it would have required a lot of equipment and a lot of personnel."

Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology. The only question remains, would such alteration have been undetectable, or would the alteration have left detectable artifacts? This question will be addressed in detail below, near the end of this essay.

In his rebuttal, Rollie presents a list of equipment that he believes would have been essential to alter the Zapruder film at the Hawkeyeworks facility in Rochester, N.Y.---and then implies that no such equipment was present at the facility because of his belief that its sole purpose was in support of the "Corona" spy satellite program. But this is disingenuous. My September FOIA request filed with the CIA, asking for a list of equipment installed at Hawkeyeworks in November of 1963, is as yet unanswered. The CIA has already told me, in writing, that it refuses to search for the information I requested in "operational records," and is currently apparently stonewalling, trying to give the appearance of cooperation, while in effect doing nothing to answer my request.

Rollie's claim that Hawkeyeworks at Rochester was supporting the "Corona" satellite surveillance program is a truthful one, but I suspect that it is only part of the story. I do not believe that "Corona" activity was the only activity supported by that highly classified joint CIA-Kodak film lab in Rochester. Why do I say this? Because Dino Brugioni, the former Chief Information Officer at NPIC in Washington, D.C. (a co-founder of NPIC, and the right-hand man of its first Director, Arthur Lundahl), told researcher Peter Janney in 2009 that at Hawkeyeworks, "they could do ANYTHING" with motion pictures. Dino should have known---for he had visited the place personally on more than one occasion, and knew the CIA official who ran the place.

There is nothing Rollie Zavada can say that can refute Dino Brugioni's personal and professional knowledge of what Hawkeyeworks was capable of, for as Rollie said to me in his 33-page rebuttal: "I was not aware of any government activities conducted at the Hawkeye Plant during the time of my Zapruder film study or prior."

Well then---Dino Brugioni visited the facility, and Rollie clearly didn't, so whatever Dino Brugioni was personally aware of trumps any later speculation of Rollie Zavada's that the facility was solely dedicated to "Corona."

Rollie also wrote the following to me: "In recent discussions with principles [sic] in the Corona Project, none are aware of a motion picture film entering the lab; further, it was reported to me that the Corona Project lab had no motion picture or color film processing capability." This is nothing but an attempt by a Kodak surrogate to issue a statement that sounds like a denial---but which really denies nothing. All Rollie has said here is that (based solely on his discourse with the limited number of persons he spoke to about "Corona") the Zapruder film did not enter the "Corona" lab---he does NOT say it did not enter the Hawkeyeworks facility.

Remember, Secret Service agent "Bill Smith," who delivered a 16 mm wide unslit double-8 mm format Zapruder film to Homer McMahon at NPIC on Sunday night, November 24th, told McMahon that it had been DEVELOPED AT HAWKEYEWORKS IN ROCHESTER, AND THAT HE HAD COURIERED THE FILM TO NPIC IN WASHINGTON D.C. FROM HAWKEYEWORKS. Rollie's attempt to define Hawkeyeworks as solely a "Corona" facility is nothing, in my view, but a modified, limited hangout, to use the expressive language of the Watergate era. It is exactly what I would expect the CIA (or Kodak, the prime contractor which ran the facility for the Agency) to say, in an attempt to confuse readers and fuzz-up the issues here.

In an attempt to fuzz-up the Hawkeyeworks issue by identifying that classified lab solely with the "Corona" project, Rollie speculated in his report that "Corona" may have been the codeword that the CIA demanded the ARRB delete from its interview reports with NPIC officials, and from the interview audiotape released to the public. I will state unequivocally now that "Corona" was NOT, repeat NOT, the code word that the CIA wanted expunged from our public records of the interviews we conducted with NPIC employees. The word they wanted expunged was "Hawkeyeworks," NOT "CORONA." At the time of our interviews of NPIC employees in 1997, "Corona" was no longer a classified code-word, and in fact an exhibit was already on display at the Air and Space Museum which told the public all about "Corona," by name, and in great detail. This is a pretty lame attempt by Rollie to confuse the issue of the full range of activities that Hawkeyeworks was capable of tackling, and it won't fly.

Sadly, Rollie Zavada expects us to believe that neither Dino Brugioni (the NPIC's Chief of Information), nor Homer McMahon (the Head of NPIC's Color Lab), was capable of distinguishing the difference between an original 8 mm film, and a copy. He suggests that both Brugioni (who said he handled a slit, 8 mm original Zapruder film on Saturday night, Nov. 23rd), and McMahon (who had delivered to him an unslit, 16 mm wide double 8 film on Sunday night, Nov. 24th, and was told it was an original) were mistaken---and that instead of handling originals, they handled first generation copies.

No doubt this dismissive opinion of Zavada's will make Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, and Gary Mack happy, but it is not a persuasive way of addressing the serious import of the NPIC evidence of the film's interrupted chain-of-custody, and of its likely alteration. (If this sounds too much like "inside baseball" to the uninformed reader, I will simply say you must read Chapter 14 of my book, and then Rollie's rebuttal, if you wish to make sense of this journal entry. There is no way around this.)

Besides, if Rollie's explanation is correct, then why were two different teams of NPIC officials assembled on two successive nights, to make two entirely different sets of briefing boards, showing what the Zapruder film depicted, and then forbidden to talk about it to anyone? Rollie doesn't address this, because there is no benign answer to this question. The real answer is that the two sets of briefing boards prepared on two successive nights at NPIC were the products of two compartmentalized operations, because briefing boards were being made from two different versions of the Zapruder film: the unaltered original on Saturday night, and the altered (sanitized) film on Sunday night.

THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT in Rollie's paper is this: "The medium is the message." Rollie contends throughout his paper that the Zapruder film could not have been altered using 1963 technology without creating detectable artifacts of forgery. He even quotes Professor Raymond Fielding as saying: "...In my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available; if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny...".

I couldn't agree more. And there IS EVIDENCE of film alteration in the image content of the extant Zapruder film, as I discussed in some detail in the Epilogue to Chapter 14, titled "The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood." The best images we have today of the film have NOT WITHSTOOD PROFESSIONAL SCRUTINY. I even published a black and white image of the most egregious example of this alteration (frame 317) in Volume I of my book. This, I believe, is why Rollie Zavada did NOT discuss the most important section of my chapter---namely, the fact that numerous Hollywood motion picture film experts have developed a strong consensus that the Zapruder film exhibits artifacts which are not like anything they have seen exposed inside a camera when shooting the natural world, and that the film is an altered film. He didn't discuss this important new development in Zapruder film research because he could not refute it. So he just pretended it did not exist. But the problem does exist, and members of the public can see this for themselves by asking for access to the large format (4 X 5 inch) MPI transparencies (made in 1997 from the original film), and the large format (4 X 5 inch) LIFE magazine transparencies (made in 1963 by LIFE) that are held by the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. If you go to the Sixth Floor Museum's website, you can complete a form electronically and request to see these transparencies during a personal visit; all that is required is the money to make a trip to Dallas. (See the frame numbers cited below.)

At this point in time---these are the updated figures reflecting the current state of play---over 30 experts in the motion picture industry in Hollywood have examined the 35 mm dupe negative of the extant Zapruder film being studied by the informal, ad hoc "Hollywood research group," and all of them have expressed serious disquiet about the blacked-out areas on the back of JFK's head---specifically in frames 313, 317, 321, 323, and 329---stating that they have never seen apparent artifacts like these filmed in nature, and that they strongly suggest artificiality, or tampering. Six of these people have flatly stated that the film has been altered, and that the blacked-out areas on the back of JFK's head are all the proof they need. Those who have viewed the film in Hollywood are either editors, restoration experts, or colorists.

Even the somewhat degraded black and white images of frame 317 that I published in Volume I of my book are pretty damning; the jet-black trapezoid with the remarkably straight edges on the back of JFK's head in frame 317 just happens to be located exactly where the medical staff at Parkland hospital says there was an exit wound---evidence of a shot from the front. (In my view, it was a crude and blatant attempt to hide the true exit wound---from a frontal shot, not from a shot fired from behind, in the Book Depository---from the public.) When the high definition digital scans of the 35 mm dupe negative are seen on an HD color monitor---and not in a degraded black and white illustration printed on non-glossy paper---they are truly stunning. Eventually, they will be publicly released, but the timing and venue for that release is under the control of the Hollywood research group, and their research is continuing at the present time.

Meanwhile, as I stated above, the public can request in-person viewings of the large format transparencies---made directly from the extant film---on the Sixth Floor Museum's website.

Let us also not forget that the late Dr. Roderick Ryan, a former Kodak employee who was Los Angeles/Hollywood based for much of his career, told author Noel Twyman during the 1990s that the large head wound seen in frames 335 and 337 on JFK's skull was, in his opinion, a painting, i.e., artwork. (No such wound was seen at Parkland hospital, either.) Now, Dr. Ryan worked for Kodak also---which is just one more reminder that experts disagree, and that we need not trust what Rollie Zavada says just because he was a Kodak employee. My basic point about Rollie Zavada in Chapter 14 remains unchanged: he never worked in the Hollywood motion picture visual effects industry, and therefore is not qualified to state definitively that the Zapruder film could not have been convincingly altered.

His current position is that it could not have been altered without leaving evidence of alteration---artifacts---that would have given the game away. And yet this is precisely what today's pre-eminent Hollywood film restoration experts and colorists and editors see when they examine the 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film: ARTIFACTS THAT INDICATE ALTERATION.

In my opinion, this is why the Zapruder film was purchased lock, stock, and barrel by LIFE magazine in 1963, and then suppressed as a motion picture for 12 years. (LIFE showed the extant film---portrayed as the original---to the Warren Commission on one occasion in February of 1964, and the Commission staffers saw it on a shaky, flexible movie screen without the benefit of the frame by frame, high resolution examination made possible by today's digital scanning technology. LIFE never once licensed it commercially for use as a motion picture, and only published selected frames when it was deemed desirable.) The versions seen today in most documentaries are dark versions that come from less-than-desirable substandard "bootleg" film elements. The MPI video sold in 1998 suffers from aspect ratio problems, and the images of the back of the head are unusually dark since MPI altered the contrast of the images it marketed. But the large-format MPI transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum, when viewed in person, clearly reveal the artifacts that I discuss here.

I believe in the primacy of empirical evidence. The best empirical evidence available today---the 35 mm dupe negative being studied in Hollywood, the MPI large format transparencies owned by the Sixth Floor Museum, and the extant film itself (in cold storage at the National Archives II facility in College Park, Maryland)---bears evidence that the film was indeed altered. The medium is INDEED the message---but Rollie Zavada does not want to discuss the evidence of alteration (artifacts) that exist in the extant film today. Instead, he wants us to trust him when he says that the Zapruder film was not altered, without discussing the blatant evidence we now have that it WAS altered.

The small comfort that people like Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, Gary Mack, and John McAdams will derive from Rollie Zavada's rebuttal of Chapter 14 of my book will be short-lived, and their crowing will only persuade the limited audience which has not read my book, and those who have not yet seen the evidence of alteration in high definition: frames 313, 317, 321, 323, and 329.

The medium IS the message, and the day will soon come when frame 317 of the Zapruder film will be a major icon of American history, representative of the deceit, lies, and falsehoods sold to us for almost 50 years now about one of the most shameful events in American history. END

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't mean to put the cart before the horse. Here's Zavada's comments on IARRB. - BK

Roland J. Zavada

26 May 2010

Mr. Douglas P. Horne, Author

Re: Comments on Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery

I have been made aware of and acquired Volume IV of your five volume

work: "Inside The ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD".

I was deeply saddened in reading your dissertation to find that a mutually respected professional relationship had degraded to find you implying that I would comprise my personal integrity to distort the truth of my factual findings as an alleged cover for my former employer – Kodak.

It now appears that your analysis and interpretation of inconsistencies in of the JFK medical evidence has distorted your logic and caused you to warp truthful findings and impugn the integrity of others including Mr. Zapruder himself.

A factual, truthful and expanded logical analysis to all of your perceived weaknesses and limitations in my report exceeds the time and effort I care to expend in response. Further, I have faith that the readership will be able to comprehend that: rather than convincing them that the impossible occurred and the film was altered; your updating of activities that occurred with the CIA at NPIC affirms the Zapruder films held at NARA are authentic.

My appended comments are formatted as a series of issues. You have interlocked several researchers of the Zapruder Film with your analysis of my report and therefore I have copied them in my comments to you.

Doug, you have forgotten my oft quoted comment from Marshall McLuhan that: The medium is the message; and that the form of the medium, 8mm film, embeds itself with the limitation that it can not be altered as perceived by you and others.

cc: Most Z-film Researchers mentioned in Chapter IV

Cover Letter:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-052610-cvr.pdf

Report:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I didn't mean to put the cart before the horse. Here's Zavada's comments on IARRB. - BK

Roland J. Zavada

26 May 2010

Mr. Douglas P. Horne, Author

Re: Comments on Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery

I have been made aware of and acquired Volume IV of your five volume

work: "Inside The ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD".

I was deeply saddened in reading your dissertation to find that a mutually respected professional relationship had degraded to find you implying that I would comprise my personal integrity to distort the truth of my factual findings as an alleged cover for my former employer – Kodak.

It now appears that your analysis and interpretation of inconsistencies in of the JFK medical evidence has distorted your logic and caused you to warp truthful findings and impugn the integrity of others including Mr. Zapruder himself.

A factual, truthful and expanded logical analysis to all of your perceived weaknesses and limitations in my report exceeds the time and effort I care to expend in response. Further, I have faith that the readership will be able to comprehend that: rather than convincing them that the impossible occurred and the film was altered; your updating of activities that occurred with the CIA at NPIC affirms the Zapruder films held at NARA are authentic.

My appended comments are formatted as a series of issues. You have interlocked several researchers of the Zapruder Film with your analysis of my report and therefore I have copied them in my comments to you.

Doug, you have forgotten my oft quoted comment from Marshall McLuhan that: The medium is the message; and that the form of the medium, 8mm film, embeds itself with the limitation that it can not be altered as perceived by you and others.

cc: Most Z-film Researchers mentioned in Chapter IV

Cover Letter:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-052610-cvr.pdf

Report:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

BK Notes: Okay, after reading this I think it is pretty fair to say that we are taking these issues further, and learning more every day.

It's just a shame, and Dr. Costella's main criticism of IARRB is true - it's a shame we didn't have this conversation ten years ago when it would have meant a lot more, and we would have the answers now. It took Bugliosi to spark Horne and it took Horne to spark Zavada's rebuttle, and now we have some FOIA cases still out, and TThompson is considering rounding up his posse to put together the difinitivie Zapruder Film timeline, and we're now waiting on Team Hollywood to report on their findings.

While I don't pretend to understand the technical details discussed, and I'm sure David Healey, Jack White and others will better understand them (and Lamson will go giddy), I do know what a slit and unslit film is, and that only the original has scenes between the sprocket holes.

Since I am more interested in following the provenance of the film and its copies and not so much interested in the alterationist debate, I must also take issue with Zavada's contention that he was tasked with determing "whether the in-camera original film could have been altered."

I thought he was tasked with determing whether the original Zapruder film is an in-camera original and actually taken with Zapruder's camera. Since there are already two other films in the NARA that are known to have been filmed with that camera, a proper forensic comparison of the three films can answer that, a test that has not yet been performed.

Without engaging in the arguments over alteration, Rollie Z says it has now been determined that there was an unslit copy in the possession of the Secret Service, so McMahon has been proven right one again, even though the first response to his interview was to mock him.

Still to be answered however, is whether and why the Z-film was ever at the Kodak "Hawkeye Works" at Rochester NY and why the original and different copies of the Z-film were taken to NPIC twice. They were there on two, possibly three different occassions, twice for the production of two different sents of briefing boards. Which begs the still unanswered question as to who was briefed by the second set of briefing boards if it wasn't the Director of the CIA, who we know was briefed by the first set?

And thanks to Clint Bradford for posting Zavada's report and to Doug Horne for his quick and decisive response.

BK

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some non-technical highlights.

In his reply to Doug Horne, Rollie Zavada wrote:

You also fail to inform your readership of the tremendous complexity introduced by LMH Co. (established by Zapruder's heirs) in their challenge to demand copyright license before any of the photographs I had taken could be used in the Kodak report. The AARB initially supported LMH Co's desire to extract a restrictive and potentially expensive license in order to complete my work. You called it a standard "boiler plate" contract and encouraged us to accept. Kodak appropriately refused and all work to complete the detailed report ceased during July and August. It was necessary for me to retrieve all photographs from supporting interviewees and then to provide Kodak all negatives, prints and extracted computer data (for Kodak – in safe keeping) and certify that I possessed no copyright protected photographs of Zapruder's film material.

You were aware that the consequence of that action forced me to begin rewriting my report using only those B&W photographs from the Warren Commission for edge print identification and to provide analogous edge print data from my vintage 8mm film material - a truly disastrous approach to a meaningful report of a specific film. This represented almost two months of wasted effort before the DOJ, in late August, ruled that my report photographs represented "fair use". Understand that it required a significant effort to reconstitute a meaningful study before the closing date – BUT IT GOT DONE! – And you received an "off-the-radar" personal copy or two. (1186)

In my own interest as a consultant, I subsequently protected Kodak and myself by personally obtaining a written copyright license from LMH Co. formy report.

(p.1-2)

In his letter of July 24, 1997, Kenny wrote:

"In the early afternoon on the day of the Kennedy assassination, I was told by Mr. Chamberlain to set up a processing machine for some special film the secret service would bring in. I did so. Sometime later a Secret Service agent with a roll of film was brought to me. (I cannot comment on any handling of the film before this).

I took the agent and the roll of film into the processing room. There the single roll of was fed into the #2 processing machine by B. Davis (deceased). Davis, the agent and myself stayed in the darkroom until the film entered the dry cabinet. The agent and I then went to the dry alley. The lights in the drying cabinet were turned off so we could not view the film.

When the roll of film reached take off, I removed it and gave it to the agent.

No Film was removed from the roll at the processing operation. I Am not sure if the edge printer was off or on (for some reason I think the agent requested we turn it off)."

The request is acknowledged by Kenny, but his doubt rather than action is confirmed. Addendum A1-13.

In your own analysis of what took place at the Kodak processing laboratory, you reported that Agent Sorrels departed before processing of the original was completed. No other secret service agent was reported to be present and we know that Phil Chamberlain had control of the film after processing and projected it for Zapruder and a dozen lab personnel. The significant and critical review of Kenny's statement (above) came not from me, but from Blair and Chamberlain as Phil said he would have been notified if a departure from standard practice occurred. (Note: It was not unusual for the dry cabinet lights to be turned off when processing films for law enforcement purposes to protect an operator from viewing evidence.)

p.5

The title to that section was: "Our discussion developed the most probable sequence of events for the processing of the Zapruder films as follows:

(Study 1, p26&27)

However there are some significant recollections. After the copies were processed at least one copy was slit to 8mm and shown to Zapruder and a few lab personnel and Phil recalled:

"This time, we slit and spliced the films and put them on regular 8mm projection spools, and once again trooped to the conference room -- this time to see the film at its normal size and speed, and several times, if we wished! Those of us in the lab realized that the duplicate (the slit roll chosen) was soft, or fuzzy compared to the original, but really of good quality considering the circumstances."

(Attachment A1-11, p5)

This recollection establishes, (by viewing a lower image quality assessment), that a least one Jamieson copy was slit. What of the remaining copies and original?

Phil had also reported that: "Early on Saturday, two FBI agents showed up, with one of the copies of the Zapruder film. I don't know how they were aware of the existence of the film, or how they obtained the copy. Erwin Pattist, who was then the Quality Control Supervisor, and I set up a Kodak Analyst projector that runs both backwards and forwards, and can stop to examine individual frames, etc. For nearly an hour we ran the projector as the FBI agents counted the frames between Zapruder's flinches at each shot, cursed the street sign that obscured the view during a crucial moment, exclaimed as bullets impacted -– and like us, theorized…etc"

The above recollection by Phil Chamberlain indicates that the FBI had an unslit 16mm wide double 8mm copy. The Analyst Projector is a 16mm

1 The term "slit" is used throughout, but the term "split" is also correct for converting double 8 to 8mm.

p. 6

Projector, and the frame-by-frame analysis described could not have been accomplished with then existing 8mm projectors.

We also know from the information you supplied, that a "16mm width double 8mm film", presumably a Secret Service Dallas copy, was received at the NPIC Saturday night in Washington.

The statements indicating that all films were split to 8mm was initially suspect. During my first visit to NARA in 1996, I reported that I had viewed an unslit double 8mm (16mm width) Secret Service copy of the Zapruder film or subsequent generation copy. (Attachment A1-3 of Study

1) In response, ARRB (you) and NARA informed me that a 16mm double 8mm print did not exist and my memory during our brief visit was in error!

Now, at last, I am exonerated as you publish a much-needed clarification on p1265 as: "The misidentified film had been listed by the Archives as a Time-Life copy. Rollie himself had earlier reported extensively on this misidentification ………The misidentified film was unslit, and examination of the film revealed poor image quality, as well as manufacturer's edge print, etc"

Subsequently I did conclude Kodak did not slit the Zapruder original because –

In March 2000, I was asked to examine film materials returned to the Zapruder family by Time-Life in 1975 and subsequently donated to the Sixth Floor Museum in 1999. We now had the third Jamieson copy available for study together with two 16mm negative copies of the double 8mm original and a corresponding dirty dupe identified by Museum curator Gary Mack. (Purportedly printed by Allied Laboratory in Chicago Nov. 24 or 25 1963.)(Film box available)

By analyzing the perforated lab identification of the Jamieson copy compared to a print-through of the identification number on the Allied negative, we can conclude that Zapruder did not allow his valuable original to be slit. The original film is what Zapruder's contract stipulates he provided to Time for $50,000.

I believe the resulting double 8mm Allied Laboratory negative became the source of selected images (called-out with tabs) for the assassination sequence photos in Life, November 29, 1963. (See photo of proof below)

p.7

We now had evidence that Phil Chamberlain's comments that all four rolls of double 8mm KODACHROME processed by the Dallas Lab on November 22 were slit to 8mm width is NOT TRUE, and my viewing of a Secret Service double 8mm copy at NARA in 1996 adds to the analysis to confirm this fact. Then, in what format were the original and three Jamieson copies (slit or unslit?) when Zapruder departed the Kodak Dallas Processing Laboratories?

When Stolley of Time-Life first negotiated with Zapruder to gain media rights to the original, we can reasonably conclude that the term "required return of the original print" stated in the written agreement referred to the camera original and not a Jamieson copy. That unslit original was printed by Allied in Chicago, Saturday November 23rd or Sunday the 24th, in order to meet the prepress make-up requirements for the November 29th issue of Life. (Possibly printed Monday or Tuesday November 25th or 26th.)

Slitting A; B; Cs.

A. One copy was slit as Zapruder projected it at Kodak and then for the interested newspersons on Saturday morning. (1- slit);

B. The FBI visited the Kodak Dallas Laboratory also on Saturday morning to view the Secret Service loaned unslit copy on an Analyst 16mm projector.

(1– unslit);

C. You report the Jamieson copy that was received by the NPIC late Friday night required opening a photo shop to acquire an 8mm projector. (1- slit) Therefore it is highly probable that two Jamieson copies were slit Friday afternoon and that the original and one copy remained unslit. The SS/FBI Jamieson copy was sent to Washington Saturday with the request that three copies be made and two returned to Dallas.

Now try this scenario:

The unslit Jamieson copy (borrowed by the FBI and viewed at Kodak Dallas lab) is sent to Washington, D.C., by C. D. DeLoach using a commercial flight the evening of the 23rd and met by the FBI in Baltimore. (See your "Major Chain of Custody Discrepancy" paragraph p1220.) The FBI communiqué requests copies be made. After FBI viewing, Mr. Smith couriers the film to the closest KODACHROME II printing and necessary processing source -- Kodak Rochester (no K14 process in Washington) to have rush copies made. Because this activity is secret, at that time, his secure contact at Kodak for the services needed is through the CIA project at Hawkeye Plant. After the films are copied and processed, he returns to Washington and the NPIC.

The Jamieson copy and a 2nd generation copy are hand delivered to McMahon at NPIC Sunday night, by Smith, for Briefing Board prints (p1241). Per McMahon's interview with you3, a copy is projected as 16mm double 8mm, and another double 8 film (the Jameson double 8mm copy) that he believes is the 'original' is enlarged 40X (about 5X7 in.) to make internegatives for subsequent briefing board printing.

3 http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/horne-mcmahon-interview.mp3

Then McMahon makes a critical observation – he reports that as part of the procedure for critical focus, a portion of the film is enlarged 400X "as if we were looking through a microscope". You questioned, "grain" and McMahon provides you with and excellent tutorial on KODACHROME image structure – no grain seen! I contend that if the film were altered, as you profess, the grain structure of the required intermediate films would be easily seen at 400X! Therefore, the image structure confirms that McMahon was using the unslit Jamieson – same day - copy for the Briefing Board prints – not an altered substitute 'original'!

A practical test in Zapruder's camera would have been ideal. That possibility was discouraged at the onset for my pro bono study of the camera characteristics by NARA and endorsed by ARRB.

In ARRB's Feb. '97 letter to Kodak detailing our plan of work, and the subsequent meeting at Kodak, we were encouraged to obtain and test a comparable camera rather than use Zapruder's camera held by NARA.

It was that decision by ARRB (to obtain and test a comparable camera) that forced me to seek the use of a B&H 414 camera from the George Eastman House collection. That request was unsuccessful and led me to make my own fortunate purchases on the used camera market with the luck of three cameras within 210 serial numbers of Zapruder's camera – possibly manufactured the same day.

You subsequently spend several pages relating to your desire to conduct a practical test with Zapruder' camera in Dallas. (p1286-1287)...

For the record: I also don't believe you could have gained permission from Steve Tilley to use the Zapruder camera.

Near the conclusion of my testing program, Steve Tilley of NARA denied three requests to perform simple practical testing, although I designed one test so I wouldn't have to even touch the Zapruder camera!

You criticize that I did not conduct an image content evaluation of the Zapruder film. However, it is not until your parenthetical addendum comment (p1353) that you inform your readers that the omission was an initial and specific contractual constraint in the work agreement developed between Kodak and the ARRB. (Also confirmed in your interview on Black OP Radio, 12/10/09.)

11. Or in his 'cooking of the books' in his Zapruder film authenticity study, was Rollie acting as an agent of the company that ran the "Hawkeye Plant"…… The Secret Service agent who delivered the 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 film to McMahon on Sunday night told him it had come from "Hawkeyeworks" in Rochester, the code name of a highly classified CIA film lab at the main Kodak industrial facility in Rochester; etc. (p1293)

We are now aware that at the time period of the assassination a component of the highly secret Cold War CIA/USAF satellite reconnaissance "Project Corona" was housed at the Kodak Hawkeye Plant. This project's secrecy level no doubt prompted the cautions expressed to the ARRB during your interviews – if Corona was the "code word" expunged from the Homer McMahon interview by ARRB. (p1323). Corona satellite cameras used special thin-based 70mm wide B&W film processed by Kodak after capsule recovery. Kodak designed and built 10-20-40X Precision Enlargers capable of enlarging small elements of the original film up to 40 times in order to provide larger prints for display and briefing. The completed equipment was delivered to various government installations for use by the photointerpreters and analysts. (See Brugioni's reference to satellite imagery film, p1333) I could not "act as a agent" to withhold information as I was not aware of any government activities conducted at the Hawkeye Plant during the time period of my Zapruder film study or prior. In recent discussions with principles in the Corona Project, none are aware of a motion picture film entering the lab; further; it was reported to me that the Corona Project lab had no motion picture or color film processing capability.

p.12

I contend, however, the fundamental issue rests with the technology and logistics of whether or not it was possible to alter the Zapruder original film and substitute an undetectable facsimile. If unaltered, as I believe, the "incamera" original resides at NARA, and the film is the unimpeachable witness to the assassination. Perceived inconsistencies of content are anomalies that may be difficult or impossible to explain.

My analysis, to convince you, et al, that alteration was impossible follows below. There is reiteration of some comments previously made to ensure closure.

p.14

13A. You develop a chronology of events following the development of the Zapruder original and Jamieson copies at Kodak's Dallas Laboratory as: (p1323+)

1. Original and copies are slit to 8mm and one copy viewed as 8mm.

2. Agent Sorrels receives two copies – Zapruder assists and delivers one for a USAF flight to Washington, NPIC Friday night the 22nd.

3. Zapruder did possess the original through Saturday morning when he sold it to Richard Stolley of Time/Life. Life then flew it to Chicago late Saturday afternoon the 23rd for viewing/printing. However you believe after negotiations, LIFE willingly (or unwillingly) cooperated with federal officials to divert the original film to Washington. (p1240)

4. Dino Brugioni4, is convinced he received a 8mm "original" Saturdaynight the 23rd for the making of briefing boards.

5. Next night, Sunday the 24th, Homer McMahon5 is also convinced he receives Zapruder "original", but as 16mm double 8mm unslit for the making of a second (independent?) set of briefing boards.

6. You conclude that this represents prima facie evidence that the film was altered Sunday and the double 8mm film McMahon received was masquerading as the "original".

7. You are convinced that Dino Brugioni knew he was handling the "original" because of his credentials and from his interview with Janney: "I know it was an original because we all put on white gloves." (p1329) Further determination that the film was the original was "how nervous the two Secret Service agents were about how the film was handled by the NPIC staff –." (p1233)

4 A former senior official at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). He was an imagery analyst and also served as NPIC's Chief of Information.

5 Head of NPIC color lab in 1963

p.15

8. You profess that the "original" film was viewed in Washington on Saturday and during the repeated analytical viewings it wasdetermined what needed to be done to alter the film. The film wasthen flown to Rochester "Hawkeye Works" where there was about nine hours available Sunday to complete the minimum immediate alteration needed.

9. Your interviews confirm that the Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture at NPIC. (p1224) You further state that Kodak did not have the special enlarging equipment needed, (40X) and that is why the film went to CIA's NPIC.

(Note; precision 40X enlarger should have been available as it was a Kodak designed key component of the Corona Project. RZ)

10. You conclude that because two "different" briefing boards were developed – by separate compartmentalized teams - one from an 8mm film ("original") – Saturday - and a second from a double 8mm film (an "adjusted original") – Sunday night +, that an alteration to the 8mm "original" took place at CIA's Kodak Hawkeye Plant on Sunday the 24th. 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 an Oxberry to remove whatever was objectionable in the film - most likely the car stop and the rear-ofhead exit debris; 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. (p1241)

11. Then, three KODACHROME IIA copies would need to be made from the new 'original' to replicate and replace the three Jamieson "sameday" copies made in Dallas. These newly minted copies (masquerading as 'first generation' – now third to fifth generation) must consequently be exchanged for the original Jamieson "same day" copies.

12. The new 'original', as double 8mm, would concurrently be used to generate 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.

13. You also hypothesize that when LIFE paid the additional $100,000 to Zapruder, (for the motion picture rights) it was in fact "hush money" in exchange for his silence that his original had been altered. Then I become confused as your analysis of alteration wavers when discussing film swaps, you add a footnote 27: "We simply do not yet know enough about which aspects of the film have been altered---or how they were altered -- to assess exactly what was done at 'Hawkeyeworks' on Sunday, November 24th 1963. All we can say for sure is that some alterations were conducted at that highly classified facility in Rochester, and that the revised product was delivered to the CIA's NPIC Sunday night for the production of briefing boards from selected frames – etc." (p1341)

However a few pages later when you "dismantle" Professor David Wrone, you confidently write: "Actually, the weight of all available evidence today is that the CIA not only attempted, but succeeded in altering the Zapruder film at the "Hawkeye Plant" in Rochester, New York. The car stop associated with the head shot(s), and the debris seen leaving the rear of President Kennedy's head in Dealey Plaza, were both removed; the large blowout in the right-rear of the posterior skull was blacked and a false wound was crudely painted on the right-front side of the head, as seen the altered film ...and…The altered 16 mm wide, unslit masquerading as an 'original' on Sunday night was created at the CIA's classified film lab at Kodak's headquarters and main industrial facility in New York, which according to Dino Brugioni, "could do anything." (p1344)

13B. As a simple concise outline summary let me repeat what it is you are asking your readers to believe:

• Zapruder film copy is studied alerting SS/CIA that "changes" are needed to coincide with autopsy findings

• The Zapruder 8mm 'original' is diverted from TIME/LIFE's possession to NPIC where briefing panel internegatives and prints are made,

• The 8mm 'original' is flown to Rochester Hawkeye Works CIA lab.

• The original is altered: to remove exit rearward debris and evidence of posterior head wound, and add right frontal lobe wound, skull flap and forward tissue spray. Limousine stop corrected.

• The adjusted 8mm assassination sequence (side is oriented with the family/office lady scenes (side A) to replicate a double 8mm unslit "out-of-camera" 'original' on KODACHROME II daylight balance film.

• Three copies are made on KODACHROME IIA to replace Jamison copies.

• Three copies are printed on 16mm negative film, two processed as negative and one as reversal and flown to LIFE in Chicago.

• A second set of briefing boards is made from the altered double 8 original.

• The required exchanges of altered films for originals are completed. To accomplish the alteration you profess that: "All that one would have needed was a good, state-of-the-art optical printer facility, and laboratory technicians matte artists experienced in the 'black arts' Hollywood."

p. 17

Therefore, the following lengthy review regarding the impossibility of altering the original film and reproducing it as an undetectable facsimile on KODACHROME II daylight film stock must be worth my effort "for the record" to provide my closure to the alteration issue. My analysis described below has been reviewed and concurred to by Professor Raymond Fielding. This dissertation follows as several sub parts with references to your comments and conclusions.

BK Notes: Why does everyone want to "provide closure." I don't think this will provide closure at all, but only fan the flames.

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few questions.

Given all the problems with copyright problems, if the American people paid $24 million for the Zapruder film, why don't they now own the copyright?

In citing Doug Horne's scenario RZ wrote: "2. Agent Sorrels receives two copies – Zapruder assists and delivers one for a USAF flight to Wshington, NPIC Friday night the 22nd. "

I thought Sorrels said Zapruder delivered the copy to the Grand Prarie Naval Air Station, which would not have been USAF but US Navy jet flight to Washington. Not nitpicking here, if the Z-film is evidence and there is a chain of custody maintained, there should be record of what kind of flight the film took to DC.

Then in devising his own plausible scenario RZ wrote:

"The unslit Jamieson copy (borrowed by the FBI and viewed at Kodak Dallas lab) is sent to Washington, D.C., by C. D. DeLoach using a commercial flight the evening of the 23rd and met by the FBI in Baltimore. (See your "Major Chain of Custody Discrepancy" paragraph p1220.) The FBI communiqué requests copies be made. After FBI viewing, Mr. Smith couriers the film to the closest KODACHROME II printing and necessary processing source -- Kodak Rochester (no K14 process in Washington) to have rush copies made. Because this activity is secret, at that time, his secure contact at Kodak for the services needed is through the CIA project at Hawkeye Plant. After the films are copied and processed, he returns to Washington and the NPIC."

I went to Horne IARRB p. 1220 and I can't find any reference whatsoever to C.D. DeLoach and a commercial flight to FBI Baltimore. Am I missing something?

Is DeLoach mentioned in any Z-film documents and did a copy of the Z film take a commercial flight to Baltimore on a commercial flight?

BK

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I went to Horne IARRB p. 1220 and I can't find any reference whatsoever to C.D. DeLoach and a commercial flight to FBI Baltimore. Am I missing something?

Is DeLoach mentioned in any Z-film documents and did a copy of the Z film take a commercial flight to Baltimore on a commercial flight?

BK

I can't find anything either, Bill. Good questions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I went to Horne IARRB p. 1220 and I can't find any reference whatsoever to C.D. DeLoach and a commercial flight to FBI Baltimore. Am I missing something?

Is DeLoach mentioned in any Z-film documents and did a copy of the Z film take a commercial flight to Baltimore on a commercial flight?

BK

Bill:

I've had a quick search and, in summary, a (hopefully useful) reply to your two questions:

Gordon Shanklin phoned FBI HQ in Washington around 5 pm on the Saturday evening, and told Cartha D. DeLoach that they had been unable to have the film copied in Dallas, and that the Dallas office has no projector capable of viewing the film. Shanklin is told to “immediately” send the film to Washington, and the film is sent via American Airlines Flight 20, which departed Dallas for Friendship Airport in Baltimore at 5:20 pm. The flight was met by FBI agents, who brought the film by car to FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In a covering memo, Shanklin asks that the FBI Lab make three second-generation copies, one for Washington and two for the Dallas Field Office.

References: Wrone, p. 30; Trask's "National Nightmare", pp. 121-2; Horne, p. 1346; citing FBI documents 62-109060-68 (DeLoach memo to Mohr); 89-43-1410 (Agents Barrett and Lee memo to Shanklin); 89-43-1A81 (cover sheet of package); and 60-109060-1094 (Shanklin memo to FBI).

Chris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill:

I've had a quick search and, in summary, a (hopefully useful) reply to your two questions:

Gordon Shanklin phoned FBI HQ in Washington around 5 pm on the Saturday evening, and told Cartha D. DeLoach that they had been unable to have the film copied in Dallas, and that the Dallas office has no projector capable of viewing the film. Shanklin is told to “immediately” send the film to Washington, and the film is sent via American Airlines Flight 20, which departed Dallas for Friendship Airport in Baltimore at 5:20 pm. The flight was met by FBI agents, who brought the film by car to FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In a covering memo, Shanklin asks that the FBI Lab make three second-generation copies, one for Washington and two for the Dallas Field Office.

References: Wrone, p. 30; Trask's "National Nightmare", pp. 121-2; Horne, p. 1346; citing FBI documents 62-109060-68 (DeLoach memo to Mohr); 89-43-1410 (Agents Barrett and Lee memo to Shanklin); 89-43-1A81 (cover sheet of package); and 60-109060-1094 (Shanklin memo to FBI).

Chris.

Good work, Chris! FWIW: Horned concludes that Deloach's "32 year old memory" in 1995 is off by one day and that he actually didn't view the film until 3:00am on the morning of SUNDAY the 24th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...