Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
James DiEugenio

Alexandra Zapruder Book: Part 2

Recommended Posts

Jeff

If there was a complete unflawed copy directly from the original, first generation AS THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN, then one would have been given to the Warren Commission for their investigation. It would have been one of the demands by at least one or two of the commissioners.The fact that the Warren Commission has never explained why it accepted and used a flawed copy of the Zap film for it´s investigation should tell us why the Warren Commission remained silent. They couldn´t say ... well we asked for a complete copy but there isn´t any.

¨Hear No Evil¨ Don Thomas pg 218 ...

¨The movie was originally shot with standard 16 mm film which was reversed and then split in two during processing [ Warren Commission Memo dated 28 Jan 64 reprinted in Weisberg (1976) p. 142]. LIFE provided a copy of the film and a set of slides which appear in vol. 18 of the Warren Commission Hearings on pages 1-80. For unexplained reasons, the set begins with frame 173 and ends with frame 334. LIFE did not provide the frames before 173 and the commission did not print frames 335- 343 which they did receive. Frames 208-212 were not provided by LIFE. These were allegedly destroyed by accident by a LIFE technician. The film copy provided to the Warren Commission was spliced at 208-212. The frame labeled 212 in vol. 18 of he hearings is actually the top of 208 and the bottom of 212 spliced together, [see Weisberg (1976a) p. 144].

Is Don Thomas mistaken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi George

No one is necessarily mistaken, information regarding the Z-film was incomplete for many years. 

According to the record, the Warren Commission had access to a fully extant 2nd generation print of the film. They also had a set of 35mm slides struck from the Zapruder original, representing Z-frames 173-434, missing four frames, Z-208 through Z-211 due to a technician’s error. It was the FBI who requested that this sequence of transparencies begin at frame 173. These slides were created after the film had already been damaged. The first generation prints were made before, and retained the original film’s damaged frames. The “missing frames” are today readily accessible. Weisberg’s information, cited by Thomas, was only partial in 1976. LIFE cooperated with the Warren Commission, providing a print in December 1963 and later creating transparencies.

Edited by Jeff Carter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Chris

Doug Horne explains what occurred during the time the original arrived at the NPIC and when the second set of briefing boards  were made.

Hi, George:

There is no evidence to show that the original film was at NPIC over the weekend of the assassination, and much evidence to indicate that it was not there.

Zapruder had the original from Friday evening until Saturday morning, at which time he gave it to Life. It was then flown to Chicago, where three B&W copies were made as a first step. The frames they wanted to use in the November 29 issue were then identified, and prints were made in preparation for the magazine. The film was then damaged by a lab technician in Chicago, and it was send to Life headquarters in New York on the Sunday morning. My research into the history of the film indicated that the first copy that NPIC got was probably (almost certainly) one of the two copied that Zapruder delivered to the Secret Service office in Dallas late on the Friday night, and which they sent later that night to Headquarters - the second copy that went to NPIC was probably the second Secret Service copy, which the Dallas office had loaned to the FBI on Saturday morning, and which was then forwarded to FBI HQ by the FBI in Dallas on a commercial flight on Saturday afternoon.

Chris  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

hi Karl

The higher-ups at ARRB were not going to sanction damaging the film in support of, what may have seemed to them, a fishing expedition. Information mitigating against forgery - observable grain consistent with Kodachrome II, no technology available to accomplish the task, no time to do the deed, etc - had already been articulated. And it is clear, by the paragraph you shared, that the proposed “sensible” test would not have settled anything - “If the emulsion and dyes check out, that wouldn’t prove it was authentic…”

One thing about the Z-film and ARRB which is interesting is that the film’s private ownership continued to hamper its analysis. Roland Zavada: “…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…”  see page 2 & 3 of his open letter. (...)

 

There was another good idea to prove the authenticity of the Zappi film, suggested by Doug Horne to his ARRB superiors, which has nothing to do with ownership of the film.

It was sabotaged by "the higher-ups at  ARRB" Gunn and Co. of the ARRB ...  

Quote David Lifton PIG ON LEASH 

1997

“I (Doug Horne) insisted on a film test in Zapruder’s actual camera in Dealey Plaza on November 22 at 12:30 PM,” recalls Doug. Gunn was cold, austere, distant, even hostile. “What are your reasons for wanting to do this test?” he said.

“Film authenticity,” replied Doug.

“And I said that the best way to test inauthenticity would be to see if the intersprocket sprocket image looked the same or not as the intersprocket image on the film at the Archives. That’s exactly what I said.”

“He then completely astounded me by saying ‘Can you give me a reason to conduct this test that has nothing to do with authenticitiy?’”

“I was floored by his question,” recalls Doug, “And I said, I literally exploded: ‘I can’t believe you’re asking me that question. That’s ridiculous. The

only reason to do this test is authenticity.’

Gunn said : “Let’s call Rollie and put it to a vote.”

And so, right on the spot, he called Rollie Zavada: How did he feel about conducting such a test—using Abe’s camera, upon the white pedestal, on November 22, at 12:30 PM?

“I’ve already shot test film in Zapruder type cameras,” replied Rollie, “and the only thing that Doug is proposing that’s any different is to do it on November 22, at 12:30 P.M.

Then Rollie delivered the coup de grace: “I see no reason to do this test with Abe’s original camera; it would be good enough to use any camera of the same make and model.”

“And at that point, I knew I’d lost,” recalls Doug. “I was devastated. Really, I was.”

Gunn immediately. proposed a compromise. 

“We’ve got Tom Samoluk going to Dallas on other business around November 22 [1997]. Can you send us a Zapruder type camera filled with film,

and we’ll conduct the test that Doug wants, which is to shoot it on 11/22 at 12:30 PM?”

“And Rollie said, ‘Sure, I’ll do that.’

“They thought they were doing a good thing,” says Doug. “I was extremely disappointed, because: (1) A film pro wouldn’t be conducting the test;  it

wouldn’t be Abe’s camera.”

Doug says that he knew that if Zapruder’s actual camera wasn’t used, then whatever anomalies were discovered would be attributed to a camera-to-camera variation.

“Those were all the things running through my mind, so I was very disappointed,” recalls Doug.

But it wasn’t over—yet.

 

Samoluk Goes to Dallas

But let‘s return to Samoluk in November, 1997. It was November, 1997 when Samoluk went to Dallas, tasked with the job of taking pictures from Zapruder’s perch on November 22, something he really didn’t want to do, because Dealey Plaza can be a zoo on assassination anniversaries.

Meanwhile, Rollie had sent a camera via Federal Express; it was loaded with film, and with directions, in a box to the ARRB in Washington; and now, in Dallas, Samoluk retired to his hotel room, and opened the box.

He pulled out the camera, pressed the trigger, to make sure it would run, and nothing happened. He tried again. Nothing. Experimenting a bit in the hotel room, Samoluk became convinced that the camera was jammed, and gave up on the project.

Upon returning to Washington, Doug ran over to him when he appeared at the ARRB offices, and asked excitedly (“like a puppy dog,” recalls Doug): “Did you conduct the test?”

With a sheepish look on his face,” recalls Doug, “he replied, ‘No, I didn’t, the friggin’ camera jammed.’”

What do you mean it jammed?” said Doug.

Well, either it jammed or the batteries were no good!”, replied Samoluk.

What do you mean, batteries?” said Doug, growing increasingly upset. “This  camera doesn’t have batteries, you wind it with a big gigantic key that is on the side of the camera.”

And his jaw dropped open, his eyes got big, he got this ‘oh xxxx’ look on his

face.”

Doug called Rollie and confirmed that there were no batteries, and that Rollie had not wound the camera before he sent it to the Review Board.

Rollie had sent a long list of operating instructions; but nowhere did it say

Wind the camera.”

Close Quote (David Lifton PIG ON LEASH) 

 

To prove the authenticity of the Zappi film within the ARRB was sabotaged on various levels by certain members of the ARRB itself. Gunn, Zavada, Samoluk ... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris

Dino Bruglioni said he worked with the original at the NPIC to make the briefing boards. Dino is an expert in the field. He knows the difference between an original and a copy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff

If a first generation copy of the original w/o the damaged frames existed why wasn´t it given to the Warren Commission for their investigation?

My earlier statement about the Warren Commission not having the frames necessary to see the effects of the first and second shots is still valid.

Why would a private enterprise have ownership of a copy of forensic evidence in a murder case and be trusted to give that evidence to a government agency investigating the murder case? The evidence should be transfered from a federal agency to the Warren Commission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Karl, if you are talking about FFL, that has already been dealt with at length.  

And it was a long time ago on this site.

FFL.  sry I am not familiar with that acronym ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Chris

Dino Bruglioni said he worked with the original at the NPIC to make the briefing boards. Dino is an expert in the field. He knows the difference between an original and a copy.

George:

If the camera-original film was at Life in Chicago well into the Saturday evening, as the evidence clearly suggests, then how could Dino Brugioni have been looking at a slit, 8mm film at NPIC around 10pm that same evening, and believe it to be the original?

In addition, it is worth looking at exactly what Brugioni said in his interviews with Peter Janney in May 2009 and Doug Horne in July 2011:

Peter Janney (PJ): There’s a paper trail a mile long of the film having been processed in Dallas (on Friday) … that’s where it gets confusing. Because your testimony is that the original arrived at NPIC the next day (Saturday), at 10 pm, and that there was no doubt about it, that it was an 8mm film, and that you were working with the original.

Dino Brugioni (DB):  I know it was an original because we all put on white gloves.

PJ: But you don’t remember the Secret Service saying that they had come from Chicago, or Dallas, or Rochester?

DB: No, no, no.

.......

Doug Horne (DH): Dino, do you think you had an original home movie, or a copy?

Dino Brugioni (DB): No doubt in my mind we had the original.

DH: And why do you say that?

DB: Because two reasons. One, the – the, eh, the fact that the Secret Service was bringing it in, and the second thing is when I looked at it – it, it was not processed in, in a typical commercial fashion. It [unclear, but sounds like “wasn’t”] in a box, a little box, or anything like, like that. It was very well controlled all the time. That film was controlled by the Secret Service all the time it was there.

[Some discussion skipped]

DH: Do you recall any image bleed-over …

DB: No.

DH: … between the sprocket holes?

DB: No.

DH: … OK.
 

So, Dino Brugioni "knew it was an original because we all put on white gloves", the film was not in typical commercial packing, and because the Secret Service brought it to NPIC and were very protective of the film. It is also important to remember that he said he did not see any inter-sprocket imagery on the film he studied, which should have been the case if it were the original film.  

I am not suggesting for a single moment any dishonesty on the part of Mr. Brugioni, and I fully respect him as an expert in his field. However, I would suggest that his memory might be slightly at fault on this issue. Given that he was being asked about the detail of something that had happened over 40 years earlier, and that he was well advanced in years when he was first asked about the film, he may well have mis-remembered part of the details - it happens to all of us, I'm afraid.

That is my take on the situation, however, but I do not claim to have a monopoly on the truth, so - while I firmly believe I'm correct - I accept that I could be wrong !!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Karl: It means full flush left, the image going all the way to the edge of the frame.

thx ... no, my post is about Doug Horne and how he was fooled in 1997 by Gunn, Zavada and Samoluk ... this three men where part of an investigative body ( ARRB) with 100 of thousands of cash at their disposal ... and they acted like fools, when it comes to go to Dallas and shot  a reference film with Zappis cam, or a similar one ... to compare it with the so called original Zapruder-film ... no such reference film exists down to the present day because of the strange behavior of this ARRB guys ... Gunn, Zavada and Samoluk ...

 

 

Edited by Karl Kinaski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff

Two sets of briefing boards were made on the weekend of the assassination. The first set was made under the guidance of Dino Brugioni and the second set was made under the guidance of Homer McMahon. Brugioni worked on his set on Saturday and McMahon on Sunday. Between the time the first set was complete and the start of the second set the original, which was given to a LIFE rep by Zapruder, was altered. All copies that were made in Dallas were then destroyed and the original altered film was used to make copies.

The briefing boards made by McMahon were released for review but the briefing boards made by Brugioni have never been released. Could it be that the reason McMahon´s boards were released is because he used the altered original but Brugioni used the unaltered original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff

Doug Horne is the only real authority on this issue. With all due respect to you, who I believe knows quite a bit about film alteration, no one has done more work on this issue and has generated more documentation than Horne. Plus, he interviewed both Brugioni and McMahon.

I suggest you read what Horne has to say if you haven´t done so already. 

What I know comes from Don Thomas and Doug Horne. I believe they are better suited to discuss this subject with you than I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

thx ... no, my post is about Doug Horne and how he was fooled in 1997 by Gunn, Zavada and Samoluk ... this three men where part of an investigative body ( ARRB) with 100 of thousands of cash at their disposal ... and they acted like fools, when it comes to go to Dallas and shot  a reference film with Zappis cam, or a similar one ... to compare it with the so called original Zapruder-film ... no such reference film exists down to the present day because of the strange behavior of this ARRB guys ... Gunn, Zavada and Samoluk ...

 

 

hi Karl

Horne may have had more success making an effort to locate the materials generated from the speed tests of Zapruder’s camera in late 1963. Those reels of film would have the appropriate sprocket information to compare with the Z-film, with the benefit of having been created soon after events (rather than pulling the camera out of a closet after 34 years). 

I don’t believe the ARRB had 100s of thousands dollars at their disposal. One explanation for the scepticism shown Horne is that he was already convinced what he was looking for, rather than affecting a more objective stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jeff

If a first generation copy of the original w/o the damaged frames existed why wasn´t it given to the Warren Commission for their investigation?

My earlier statement about the Warren Commission not having the frames necessary to see the effects of the first and second shots is still valid.

Why would a private enterprise have ownership of a copy of forensic evidence in a murder case and be trusted to give that evidence to a government agency investigating the murder case? The evidence should be transfered from a federal agency to the Warren Commission.

hi George

The Warren Commission and the FBI had all of the frames of the film as a 2nd generation print, and also 35mm transparencies as requested by the FBI. That is the full extent to what they asked for and apparently required for their inspection.

The investigating authorities, specifically the Secret Service, allowed, wisely or not, Zapruder to control and ultimately sell his film. LIFE, the ultimate owners, cooperated fully with the Warren Commission - screening the original film in February and creating the transparencies from the original.

As I said, Don Thomas’ questions are cited from Harold Weisberg - who asked these questions in 1976, a time when information regarding the Z-film vis-a-vis the Warren Commission was a lot sketchier. The questions have mostly since been answered.

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

×