Chris Scally

John, I think this high-quality Hughes frame, showing DPD Sgt. Harkness at the Main/Houston intersection, and reproduced here from Robin Unger's JFK Assassination Photo Gallery, clearly shows that that there is no "cut apart" policeman as you suggest.

John: If - for any reason - you include me among those who tried to "hijack" your thread or was being critical in any way, then I regret that you think so, and apologize for any misunderstanding. However, as far as I'm concerned, I simply shared with you some information about the duration of the "stop" in the Zapruder film, as researched by me some years ago. My finding of a stop of between 18.43 and 22.75 seconds was double-checked against a careful analysis of the movements of DPD motorcycle escort Leon Gray, by reference to the Weaver still photo, the Hughes film, Dale Myers' "Epipolar Analysis", and the Zapruder film. I believe that that analysis confirmed my initial figures of 18-23 seconds for the stop.

Thanks, Michael.

John, In 2014, I carried out some fairly detailed research into the elapsed time between Z-132 and Z-133. In summary, I established that the gap between those two frames was a minimum of 18.43 seconds, and a maximum of 22.75 seconds. This, as I recall, would require the removal of about 4 feet of film if it is being suggested that the 'frames' between Z132 and 133 were removed from the film. However, a far more reasonably explanation, to my mind, is that when he realized that the limo was not immediately behind the leading motorcycle escorts, Zapruder stopped filming, rewound his camera, and started filming again when the limo appears around the corner onto Elm. It should be remembered that Zapruder's camera would, when fully wound, record for approximately 75 seconds on a 'full wind' - he had already been filming (a few frames of setup footage, followed by footage of Marilyn Sitzman with Beatrice Hester and her husband) for just over 18 seconds when he exposed Z-001, so I think it possible if not indeed likely that he used the time between the arrival of the lead escorts and the appearance of the limo to rewind his camera to 'full' again. Using my own B&H 414PD Director Series camera, I checked how long it would take to rewind the B&H camera - having first filmed for 18 seconds - from stopping the camera, rewinding it to full, focusing on a subject and starting to film again, and in a series of repeated tests, I averaged between 19 and 21 seconds - almost exactly the duration of what I believe was Zapruder's stop in filming. Hope this helps ... Chris.

Thanks, Doug. Chris.

Do you have any further details about this, please, Douglas? Chris

Hmmm ... very interesting. Why would they now admit that they have the "original footage", when it was supposedly "missing" for so long? And an e-mail from an account manager, quoting "the powers that be" is certainly a most unorthodox and unusual mechanism by which to eventually come clean, and admit they have such footage. Also, does the e-mail specify exactly what "original footage" he is talking about? Darnell and Weigman? Or just Weigman? Or just Darnell? Are NBC playing word games? The HSCA doesn't appear to have been able to get anything out of them, either. The only specific references I can find to either film are to "movie stills" from Weigman's film, and "Sprague copies of Weizman (sic) film". Very interesting indeed.

According to your website (http://www.prayer-man.com/the-search-for-the-weigman-darnell-films/), Gary Mack wrote in March 2015 - "NBC owns the original Wiegman film but when producers of JFK: Death in Dealey Plaza asked them for it 12 years ago (at my request), NBC could only locate a 1960s-era video tape of it. We wound up using, I think, a 1963/1964 theatrical newsreel version held by UCLA. NBC took the original Wiegman and Darnell films from the Dallas NBC affiliate to New York following the assassination weekend. Whether the network still has the original Darnell film is unknown, but as a former employee I know the affiliate does not have it or a copy. Nor does Jimmy Darnell. Fortunately, a first-generation 16mm copy print was made in Dallas over that weekend and it is in the Museum’s collection; however, the Museum cannot do anything with it until copyright issues are resolved." The foregoing clearly suggests that NBC legally owns, but cannot find, the original Wiegman film, and nobody knows where the original Darnell film is, either. Is this new statement, that "NBC has acknowledged they have them but the powers that be will not allow anything done with them", an update on the position as of March last year? If so, who exactly in NBC has "acknowledged" that they currently have the camera-original Darnell and Wiegman films? And who are "the powers that be" in NBC who will not allow anything to be done with the films?

I second David's comments - Thank You, James, for all your efforts. Chris

Joseph: Thanks for taking the time to reply - it is appreciated. If I can for one moment speak in general terms about your views on the book, as summarized in your Amazon review, I don't think the book was ever meant to address all the various issues raised by the film, and the multiplicity of complex and at times very acrimonious debates it has engendered over the years. My reading of the book was very much in the context of the title - "Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the Zapruder Film", the "moving, untold family story behind Abraham Zapruder's film footage of the Kennedy assassination and its lasting impact on our world". In that context, I think it is an excellent book, easy to read, and provides a perspective that has never before been revealed by a very private family. With reference to your specific question about the Doug Horne/Dino Brugioni interview, I have indeed watched it, and on more than one or two occasions ! I don't for one moment doubt Mr. Brugioni's sincerity, but I simply believe he is wrong - as was Homer McMahon in his "NPIC event" account. Late in the evening/night of November 23, 1963, Brugioni was dealing with a Secret Service-provided 8mm print of the film, at a time when Life were in possession of the original. So, irrespective of where it came from, it had already been slit from its camera-original format, and was a copy of undetermined provenance and generation. I have had the very unique opportunity of examining a copy of one of the 16mm black-and-white copies of the film made in Chicago during the afternoon of November 23. The film is in unslit camera-original format (so you can see both sides of the film simultaneously as it is projected, one side 'right-way-up', while the other side is upside-down), and it was made before the original was slit or was damaged in any way. From my own examination of that film, I am absolutely convinced that the film I viewed is genuine, and complete and intact in every way. So, while Doug Horne's account may well be "detailed and convincing" to some, I find neither his nor Dino Brugioni's accounts to be credible. Chris.

I totally disagree that Alexandra Zapruder's book is "deplorable" - it is a fascinating insight into the impact of the film on her family, and gives us a never-before seen or understood look behind much of the film's history. What I do find sadly "deplorable" is that you cite Doug Horne, Homer McMahon and Dino Brugioni as "proof" - or even "evidence" - that the film has been altered. Chris

Thanks, James - hope the upgrade goes through smoothly. Chris.

Hi, John: Many thanks indeed for your response. On the basis of the Harper-related memo that you posted, the initials are not those of Henry B. Heiberger - however, you list of Lab Staff has given me a few more leads, which I will hopefully follow-up tomorrow. Chris.

Hi, Gary: Many thanks indeed for your response. Attached is a copy of his initials on a memo which was sent to the FBI Photo Lab. Do you have a copy of Henry Heiberger's initials to compare it with? Many thanks for your help, as always. Chris

Does anyone here have any idea who in the FBI Photo Lab in Washington in November / December 1963 might have had the initials "HHB"? All or any information would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Chris.

Hi David: Quick question, if I may - "Phil's recap letter" ? Can you tell me anything further, please? Is it in Zavada's Report, or somewhere else where I can find it? Thanks in anticipation, Chris. Posted in error - please ignore / delete

Just on a point of accuracy - this is not Sawyer's HSCA testimony, but an interview report, based on a November 1977 interview of Sawyer carried out by HSCA investigator Harold Rose.

Thanks, Chris. I will e-mail the agent, and see what we get ...! Will update this thread accordingly, if/when I get a response. Chris.

Thanks, Larry. I've looked for contact info for Keith Reddin, but without any success yet. "Frame 312" is a "dramatization of a conspiracy theory", which was also produced in book form in 2002, so I don't know if it is anything other than a good fiction story - I suspect not. However, if anyone can get any further information about the real story behind the book/play, I do have a contact who might be able to tell me if the woman on whom the "Lynette Porter" figure is based was ever an "assistant editor" (or even a very senior secretary) at Life back then.

Chris / Larry / Ron: The flow chart that Larry refers to is one I created back in 2010, in conjunction with my presentation for the JFK Lancer Conference in November of that year (as I was unable to travel, it was presented on my behalf by Randy Owen). The flow chart in question, and the slides from my presentation, are still available on-line at http://www.jfklancer.com/zapruder/Tabular_Z%20Film_Chronology.html My research into the history of the film continued after 2010, so I can fill in a few more details of how the film got to the FBI on the Saturday evening. On Saturday morning, one of the two copies of the film given by Zapruder to the Secret Service on Friday night was loaned by Secret Service Inspector Kelley to SA Jim Bookhout of the Dallas FBI office, and Bookhout, in the company of SA Robert Barrett (as far as I can determine) took the film back to the Kodak plant in Dallas for an hour long "viewing". Bookhout was also trying to get the film copied in Dallas but failed, so he gave the film to Gordon Shanklin, the SAIC of the Dallas office. just before 5pm, Shanklin phoned FBI HQ in Washington, and (to make a long story short), Shanklin was told to send the film to Washington "immediately". As Ron noted, the film was sent in the personal care of the pilot (who may have been a Capt. Motley) on American Airlines Flight 20 which departed Dallas for Baltimore at 5:20 pm. The flight was met in Baltimore by FBI agents, who brought the film by car to FBI headquarters, a journey of probably less than one hour, which would have put the film in the hands of the FBI in D.C. at approximately 10 pm at the latest. There is also something of a paper trail for at least part of this sequence of events. Sometime after he got the film from Inspector Kelley that morning, Dallas FBI agent Bookhout completed an official FD340 Receipt Form for “one roll - 8mm color film taken by Abraham Zapruder – 11/22/63”, which was “Sent to FBI Lab” on the same date. Along with a copy of the FD340 form, the National Archives (NARA) also holds what purports to be a photograph of the actual spool of film and the box in which it was held. So where does this leave Keith Reddin's story of "Lynette Porter"? On the face of it, it doesn't seem to stand up to close scrutiny, but I guess it could refer to a later event, in which Hoover perhaps asked Time-Life for another 'off-the-record' copy of the film for himself - is that possible, or even likely? The article Chris brought to our notice says this event happened "only a few hours" after Oswald was shot - that was Sunday, November 24. By that time, the FBI Lab (and therefore Hoover) already had the film for almost 24 hours. Thoughts, anyone else? Chris

Through my I.T. security background, I have a reasonably good idea of the cost involved in restoring a site that has been destroyed by hackers, so I can fully appreciate where James is coming from. If, as we all seem to agree, the Lancer site was - and hopefully will be again - a very worthwhile site with which we want to be associated, then why not just register as a member? As a registered member, one is not obliged to post, and can remain a reader/"lurker" with the option to post if and when desired. James, if the developers hope to restore all the data saved prior to the hack, does it mean they will be able to restore the previous membership files, or has all the old membership data been corrupted/lost? Me? FWIW, I will have no problem registering again as a member if necessary. Chris.

Stephen: It appears that the initial reports were not quite as accurate as we might have wished! The summary originally published by whowhatwhy.org said that the files contained, among other things, "Documents related to the media, x-rays of Kennedy’s body, autopsy photographs, the famed Zapruder film, footage shot by Orville Nix and other witnesses." The existence of this specific group of records no longer appears to be the case, and the web page has been amended to reflect this, as follows: - "Note: due to an editing error, an earlier version of this article incorrectly referenced several topics that were not found in the papers. It has been updated to remove those references." Chris.

I agree wholeheartedly, Jim. Enough is Enough - let's call a halt to this stuff, NOW, please. It is achieving nothing, and is just turning people away from this and other Forums.

Happy New Year, James. See you in Canterbury in April, maybe? Chris.

Thanks, Barry. Eloquent and dignified, as always. Chris