Will Emaus

Will, I am as yet unable to verify the following, but I nevertheless pass it on for two reasons. First, the researcher concerned is reputable; and, second, because it dovetails neatly with an alternative history of the early days of the Z fake, one which matches contemporaneous evidence, and answers some otherwise perplexing questions about that history. According to the aforementioned researcher, he has a kinescope of Rather on CBS TV on the evening of November 25. The available description of that Rather appearance is unlike anything to be found in either of the two readily available transcripts of Rather's descriptions of the Z fake on November 25. The researcher states that Rather mentioned nothing whatever about "legal reasons" preventing him from showing the first version of the Z fake. To the contrary, Rather showed most of the film, describing the scene as it ran, up to the point of the head shot. At which point Rather looked into the camera and explained: "This is too gruesome for you to see so I just have to describe what is happening. There is a gunshot. John Kennedy is struck in the back of the head and thrown violently forward.” If true - and I stress the "if" for the very good reason I haven't yet seen the kinescope in question - then the Rather narrative contained within Four Days in November is a retrospective fiction: The film, as a film, was not yet owned by Time-Life on the evening of November 25. Paul Really? Wow, what a find that would be Paul!

Thanks John, didn't mean to put you on the spot but I wanted to get a sense of whether others still regarded this topic as valid or something chalked up to an honest mistake; personally it just doesn't seem like an honest mistake whenever I hear it when I'm watching clips from Nov. 22 and yet it seems to be regarded as a sort of fringe topic. I mean, you could kill off a second gunman and hide it with a cover like this, especially when others talk about 2 brains, multiple caskets, etc... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LklJIZwxU28&fmt=18 Here again at about 1:33pm, Bill Lord on ABC gets from the sheriff's office confirmation that an SS agent has died, but then they simultaneously report that the sheriff's office has a great deal of rumor that we wouldn't want to pass along, we'll stick with the facts; seemingly they don't regard the SS agent's death to be in that category.

John, is a "fog of war" mistake sort of the consensus regarding this? Assuming no one ever reported witnessing an SS Agent shot in the procession, there would seem to be three possible scenarios: A. Honest fog of war reporting mistake B. Legit agent or other "good guy" killed by a conspirator and covered up C. Conspirator killed by either Law enforcement or other conspirator and covered up The reason I ask if fog of war is sort of the general opinion is because it would seem that B or C would be important enough to come to some conclusion about, and through all of Vince's great research into B it kind of stops short of an answer. The 4th shot could be a chinese whisper story, it could be a freudian slip too...

I wondered that too, although I think Eddie Barker was reporting the SS agent's death before Tippit was shot, I'll see if I can find that clip... At 4:08 of this CBS clip seems to be Eddie Barker's first mention that I can find of an SS agent death. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdq9naNsCw VonPein supposedly has the playlist synced with the assassination itself, so that would put the time of this announcement as roughly 1:04PM, a few minutes before Tippit was shot. Regardless, adding a 4th shot does seem to imply that the source seemingly realized that the "SS Agent" was shot separately and not in the target car...

I wondered that too, although I think Eddie Barker was reporting the SS agent's death before Tippit was shot, I'll see if I can find that clip...

The dead SS agent "rumor" did come straight from the Dallas police early on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRTfBZZR9-s&fmt=18 @5:47 of the clip. 3 things are announced concurrently as reported by Bill Lord on ABC - The Sheriff's Office in Dallas says an SS agent was dead - 4 shots have now been fired - A young man has been taken in for questioning I'm just curious and maybe there's a good answer but how would the sheriff's office know that a 4th shot needed to be added in order to justify the SS agent story, when Kennedy's death hadn't even been announced yet?

LOL---I'll move the SS agent stuff to another thread, it was off topic anyways...not gonna keep it in the worst thread ever.

Yep, it seems sort of extreme for a "fog of war" mistake, given who confirmed it.

The dead SS agent "rumor" came straight from the Dallas police early on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRTfBZZR9-s&fmt=18 @5:47 of the clip.

Sorry...

Wow Awesome post Will Your thoughts that you just posted had never occured to me You have me thinking Dean Thanks Dean, I'm still a rookie at most of this but the more I think about it I just can't imagine a conspiracy scenario without controlling the visual record. The possibility of alteration not matching films that surfaced later is valid, but how could you have multiple shooters and leave to chance the possibility that someone filmed them? It just seems to me that having some operation to control the visual record would have to be part of a conspiracy scenario, and if so then the need to alter, even if alteration is just defined as controlling what is seen publicly, has to exist too...

Well if you have 3 people shooting at the president as you suggest, it's not much of a stretch to suggest that someone could have been filming the plaza during the assassination sequence to do nothing more than to determine who else was filming, and then evaluate that film right away on Friday night. Just my opinion of course, but if I was given the responsibility to control the films and photos that's what I would do right away, is take that one step to get a ballpark idea of how much I'm going to need to control and what I can get away with altering...I guess my point is that I would take your point about being able to realistically control all of the films/photos very seriously before the assassination even happened if I wanted to succeed and take steps to try and manage that.

In a corporate environment, superiors often ask you to accomplish things that you know logically can't be done. And when you tell them so, they don't budge. I would assume Government probably functions in a similar manner. I've worked in a Premedia production environment for 23 years and have had to manage very complex projects with content being manufactured all over the world, and sometimes changing in the middle of the run. When that happens, you have to ensure that everything has been changed and the success of the project depends on it. It's managing content, it's a skillset. All I can say with the subject of managing changed content in this instance is to start with the hypothetical boss coming up to you a couple of days before (or maybe even on the 22nd) Friday and telling you that your assignment is to make certain changes and manage the content of all films and photos coming out of Dealey Plaza showing the assassination sequence. Just ask yourself logically, "how would I do that"? Believe me, there's an entire industry that was built by intentionally inflexible people giving an unrealistic expectation on an assignment such as this; and the person being given the assignment sitting there scratching his head working out "how do I do that"? Once you figure it out, then you know how. Then you teach others how and then it becomes a known model on how to perform this type of operation...much of the automation you see regarding managing projects like this today came from applying computer science to what were manual processes which started out as "how do I do that"? Knowing the potential for other films and photos to surface through the years I would believe would be managed two ways. One would be to try to take an inventory of all cameras in the plaza. At the very least to have some sort of overview of how many cameras were in which area and at least if you've taken count, you have an idea of how many potential films or photos could realistically surface. Knowing who was filming from where would help drive the decision making process regarding what alterations could be done to the film, by knowing in advance who could later come forward with something contradictory. Two, you would decide that alteration needed to stay as minimal as possible to avoid other films contradicting the alterations done that could surface later. So the point is valid, but you should assume that whoever could have had responsibility for this would have accounted for this potential in the upfront decision-making process regarding what to alter. I know that much more elaborate alteration hypotheses are out there, but alteration can be as simple as splices at 155 and 207 and no other film containing that sequence, could something that simple be managed? It's daunting for sure, but whether it's impossible I'm not really sold on that yet.

Wow! the scan is equal to the pixel count of a 160 dollar point and shoot digital camera. Color me impressed! Can't transmit via the internet? How silly, I do it every day. Ask Dean Hagerman if he can get a 107 mb digital file via the internet? Horne continues to unimpress I believe 512mb is the max for transmission, BUT MOST ISPs DO NOT ALLOW A FILE THAT LARGE. For instance, I have problems sending large images to AOL subscribers, because AOL will not deliver large image files by email. Jack If you use FTP you won't have those limitations...

That's a really big problem Pat, its easy to shift tonal relationships by changing film type, changing paper contrast while printing in a analog process, changing the film processing or digitally via the curves, levels or other similar processes. And in many cases when you do this data is lost and you can't get it back. In the case of the Horne scan, we don't have a clue what was done to the image when thay made the 6k scan. We know that did a digital reversal and also color corrected to remove the base coloration of the negative film stock. Beyond that we really don't have a clue, heck the scanner they used might impart curve adjustment "under the hood" before the file ever made it to someone's computer. In my opinion it was silly to go that many genrations away from the film to do this work. 5 Generations is crazy when you can be at 1. Every film generatation adds its own curves characteristics to the pie. Why do that FIVE TIMES? Because that prefer to scan neagatives? Insane. When I was involved in the Moorman drum scan with Tink, we had many discussions on how to process the file. In the end we decided NOT to process the original scan file at all and instructed the scanner operator to NOT add any levels or curve corrections. In my oppinion thats the only way to assure that the data that goes public is unvarinished. And thats how ANY scans that might be made to deal with black patch issue must be made, if we are to apply any trust to them. Josiah, I would definitely wait and look at their original to see what they've found. Beyond what Mr. Lamson is saying, you've got a slew of variables that could have impacted it's appearance as printed. -The way the file was saved, JPEG compression could be an issue but it might not, it all depends on how they saved the file. -If the page the image is on was saved as a PDF you probably have pretty severe downsampling of the image there too. It's quite possible that they downsampled the 6K image to 450 or lower when saving the page. -Then most likely the page was run through a workflow system, and although it sounds strange if the file hasn't already been converted to grayscale by this time you could have a number of changes to the file applied while it's processed before plate; even UCR or GCR could have been applied if the image hadn't already been converted. -Plate curves will change it more -Then of course when printing you have the line screen and stock which will degrade the image more. What it adds up to is the printed piece isn't going to be solid proof of anything. Given what's being alleged, you would hope that they have all of their initial settings documented to demonstrate that nothing has been modified during the scan/saving stage...

What in the world are you talking about? So what your saying is Groden worked at a film lab in New Jersey that made 3 copies and he made a copy for himself at the NJ lab that had nothing to do with Moe Weitzman? You are wrong Groden got the film from Weitzman who Groden worked for in New York not New Jersey What was the name of this New Jersey lab that Groden worked at and made a copy of the Z-film for himself? Your claiming that Groden had a Z-film in his safe that he made copies of in 1964 Time to show Barb she has no clue what she is talking about Groden told the ARRB that his first job that had to do with photography was in June of 1969 His first job in photography was with Moe Weitzman at EFX in New York Tell us Barb how was Groden who was 19 years old in 1964 was working at a photo lab in New Jersey when he was in the US Army? Do you want me to keep going? The funny part is that you talk to David and I like we are stupid, bottom line is that you dont know what you are talking about Some support for Dean's take on this... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...roden_0002a.htm

In this clip of CBS' Four Days in November below, Dan Rather describes at 5:25, CBS having had the film briefly at the time, but could not broadcast it for legal reasons. Assuming that would have been on Monday the 25th and the "legal reasons" would have been Zapruder's contract with Life... I know that Rather viewing on Monday is taken as proof that Zapruder kept the 4th copy until Monday afternoon, but another question given that Horne sites Stolley having met with Zapruder again on Sunday night the 24th is whether Stolley could have brought an original (A-1) or the 4th copy (B-1) with him to let Zapruder show and view before taking the film(s) for good on Monday.

I think the overall point is very well taken, but Life specifying that they will return the original and then be given a copy doesn't seem out of line, to me anyways. That comes across more along the lines that they will either keep the copy they've already got or be made a new one after the original is returned. I mean they're paying him $50,000 for exclusivity for that first week, keeping the 4th copy to make sure of their investment makes a lot of sense. You would think that if Zapruder just got handed $50,000, he could wait until the week was up before starting to negotiate film rights with someone else. Beyond that though, it would seem like a key in any possible alteration scenario is Oswald being silenced. You can do whatever Prep work before Sunday morning whether it's used or not, but it seems likely that you wouldn't make the decision to actually implement an altered film until after Oswald died...maybe a backup scenario was still necessary at that point had he lived and if so maybe the film would need to stay as is or be altered in a different way? I have a question too. Do you know if Life did their own frame selection for the November 29th issue? It seems possible that the early hours with the Zapruder film were mainly for analysis and that the direction on the CIA #450 document might have been directed towards not only the making of briefing boards, but to tell Life which frames were "safe" to print (not to be altered or lacking controversy). From what's been described, there seems to be about the same number of frames used for both the briefing boards and the initial Life issue. It would seem the most realistic way in the first 24 hours to control the content initially wouldn't be just to rush to alter the film (although you could certainly work on it in the background) but to review the film first and then tell Life which frames they can't print. If a potential conspirator reviews the film and simply knows which frames need to be changed, and then tells Life not to print them, then they've bought the rest of the weekend to make alterations. Using the entire weekend to accomplish this, given the different films and photos out there and the fact that some were sold on the 25th, is the only way alteration could be even remotely possible imho...

Hi Will, There's a few former Lifers around who may be able to answer these questions. Certainly if Zapruder and Life were concerned enough about the provenance of the film that they made the Kodak and Jamesson people sign affidavits, there must be a record of who Zapruder gave the original to at Life and the copies to at SS, and what they did with them. Along the same lines of thought, one photo was sold to Look and published and then given to the FBI and when it came back it was edited - for some reason the train on the tracks in the background was removed. BK Hi Bill, Yep, I was hoping that someone from Life knew the answer on the film...they had sort of an autonomous segment to their operations even onsite from what I understand which makes it pretty difficult to determine where the materials came from for the Nov. 29th issue if you are only involved on the Premedia/Print side, especially when you are relying on other people's stories... As far as the current issue regarding the full flush left, I understand that if you can show that the film wasn't made in the camera that this would be fairly significant, although to be honest if you did show that the film wasn't made in Zapruder's camera you then have to ascertain exactly where the extra image itself came from on the left, if he didn't film it. It's much easier to opaque out a head or airbrush out an element you don't want than it is to create an entire left side of the film without it being detectable in a one day span, unless enlargement is being alleged; it's much easier to explain expanded surface area than it is to explain where the extra image itself would have come from. RRD did Look magazine also...I really don't regard it as all that outrageous when people claim that the film or photos were altered, although we typically had to sign confidentiality agreements whenever we did that type of "government" work it really wouldn't be violating anything to say in general that we altered things all the time for all sorts of reasons, be it for printability or because of client request.

From what I've been told from friends through the years, a couple of whom worked on the issue, I think I can say with reasonable certainty that the stills from the Zapruder film hit RR Donnelley Prepress on Saturday evening, November 23rd, 1963. That would be by maybe 8PM CST that night. These were used in the November 29th issue of Life. It was originally on Press by around 4AM on the 24th but then the presses went down again after Oswald was shot late Sunday morning. As far as the film itself, I've heard so many different stories that I personally would have no idea if the film itself was in the Time-Life plant in Chicago Saturday afternoon or if the stills came in from the outside. Reading this got me wondering though whether anyone has ever studied the November 29th Life stills in comparison to the Zapruder film; if it's being alleged here that some of the alteration work was done Saturday night and Sunday then it's possible that the stills in Life wouldn't match the standing film. I looked at the two briefly today and what I believe is Z-337 looked a little odd (Jackie's face) but the Life online version was too small (and B&W of course) to know for sure. I was wondering if anyone else has compared the two with higher res photos?

Is this is the NBC clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F11n4INGqKE Thank you for posting this. MacNeill reports Perry's statement that the throat wound is an entry wound. Yep, no problem. It's at about 6:00 of the clip...

Further corroboration comes from the timing of Robert MacNeil's phone call to NBC reporting on the press conference. McNeil's call was logged at 2.40 CST, as I recall. Is this is the NBC clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F11n4INGqKE

I don't know Bill. I've spent the last two days retouching photos for a project that needs to be on press by Monday. Have a pile left for tomorrow. My eyes are shot. Why don't you make the call.... I thought it would be easy to keep you amused on this subject. I'm interested, if anybody can help, in seeing the published version of the backyard photo that was retouched by airbrush to remove the scope from the rifle. What publication removed the scope and why did they do it? Thanks to anyone who can answer that question, BK Bill, I retouch for a living. I think it was Life that retouched the backyard photo. I would imagine that many papers or publications that ran that photo retouched it so it would print. I think it was the Detroit Free Press that initially removed it and said it was for printability reasons...

I agree. I am sure Doug will be willing to discuss his book next month on the Forum. I have read some of Doug's book and understand why he is very excited by the testimony of this witness. That is why I sent him this information because it does support his ultimate thesis. I have also been in email contact with someone (Will Emaus) who questions the truth of this story. I have invited him to join the forum in order to discuss these issues here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14996 Hi, and thanks for the invitation. It's not really that I question the "truth" of the story, but as a former RR Donnelley employee who worked in the Calumet Plant in Chicago I do have a couple of questions regarding the timings referred to in the story. On the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963, there were almost 300,000 copies of the November 29th, 1963 Life magazine issue already printed, bound and mailed when Kennedy was shot. After the assassination, Life issued a kill order for all original copies of the November 29th issue, although there are a number of copies that I know of that employees happened to keep and I believe there are a few other copies of the issue floating around out there as well. The new version of the November 29th issue was worked on by RRD Prepress until roughly 3:30AM on the 24th when it went on Press. The presses then went down again after Oswald was shot, and after the Ruby -> Oswald material was inserted went back on Press Sunday evening. So, not questioning the authenticity of what's being said, but I do know a number of people that worked on this issue and so I had a couple of questions regarding the timing. 1. The story being referred to is regarded as "almost Print Ready" even though the November 29th issue was already in production. 2. There were 300,000 copies not only printed, but also bound and mailed when the kill order came. The fact that product was already binding and being mailed would typically preclude adding an additional form to the magazine if they intended to have a late press run specifically for this story. 3. If the story was being held due to Don Reynolds' testimony or some other late-breaking information, which is just speculation, wouldn't it have made more sense to hold the story until the Dec. 6th issue? It doesn't seem like the type of story that you would break into Production at expense to insert. So I guess my question becomes whether there is a possibility that the story was actually going to go into the Dec. 6th issue and not the November 29th issue...

I'm a Premedia Manager in the Print Industry. Have done extensive work with both page makeup and image manipulation, in film, engraving and now Digital Prepress, having been fortunate enough to have been a contributor to the transformation of the Premedia industry to digital format. I worked in the Calumet Plant for RR Donnelley for many years, and in fact was the final employee to ever work in the complex and possess the last Press signatures ever printed at the Lakeside Press. RR Donnelley did quite a bit of the major publication work that is sometimes called into question from the Kennedy era, including Time and Life magazine.