Greg Burnham

Jack's making good progress. Following the surgery he was basically pain free for about a week. Then he developed a common complication, which was not comfortable. However, the physicians were able to remedy that right away. So, he's back on track and hoping to return soon.

FWIW:

JFK Supernova

Although my original correspondence with Robert had nothing to do with what he subsequently believed he discovered, it's somewhat interesting. Do I agree with his conclusion? Not necessarily. Do I understand how he reached that conclusion? Not really. Still, among all of the peripheral noise contained therein, he does make some interesting observations.

Jim Fetzer is visiting me here in San Diego for a few days. Rest assured I have not and will not post anything for him and he has not asked that I post for him. However, I am very curious as to why his posting privilege is still suspended? After all, according to Evan's post (above) both he and Lifton had their posting privileges suspended for 72 hours. Yet, David's ability to post has already been restored long since, but Jim's has not. Is there an explanation for this?

Hi Greg,

Thanks for pointing this out. It was an oversight which I have just now corrected and restored Jim's posting rights. There is an option to set indefinitely or restrict for a period of hours e.g. 72. Unfortunately the tick box for indefintely was used, genuinely in error.

Apologies to Jim for this, and I hope this will save at least one of your ears.

Thanks,

Gary

Thanks Gary. I have almost me entire left ear intact. Whew! That was close.

I believe he should have been able to post again by the 31st as stated in Evan's post...Maybe Evan can take a look at this when he is online as he has Administrator access....

Thanks David. Because if he's not able to post very soon--he might just talk my ear clean off!

Greg,

Thanks for posting that. Is this in the record somewhere? I do not believe I have read this before.

Hi Mike. Yes, this is the text of an Official Justice Department Document. There is literally no doubt as to its authenticity. This is the memorandum of the TAPED telephonic conversation between LBJ and Hoover. It received NO news coverage whatsoever. When the LBJ tapes were finally declassified and made available on the internet--it was as if this was insignificant.

Amazing.

Greg,

I would like to read more about his, are there threads here on it? This is pretty intriguing stuff.

I don't know if there are threads on that subject here, Mike. However, way back in 2000 I did a presentation on it for JFK LANCER -- I think I was the first one to point it out at a conference (maybe not). I also sent copies of the text of the actual conversation, copies of the audio tape itself, and copies of the above memorandum to EVERY NEWS SERVICE of which I was aware (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, UPI, C-SPAN) -- and guess what? I received not even a reply. Keep in mind, I did not claim it was definitive proof of anything. I purposely made sure I did not come across as a "loon" -- I simply made the information available. Not a peep from them...nothing. Then, finally, C-SPAN replied and thanked me. They have done a good job archiving, but that's it.

Greg,

Thanks for posting that. Is this in the record somewhere? I do not believe I have read this before.

Hi Mike. Yes, this is the text of an Official Justice Department Document. There is literally no doubt as to its authenticity. This is the memorandum of the TAPED telephonic conversation between LBJ and Hoover. It received NO news coverage whatsoever. When the LBJ tapes were finally declassified and made available on the internet--it was as if this was insignificant.

Amazing.

Jim,

I apologize if it appears that my posts above are not entirely "on-topic" but my intent was to demonstrate that one of the assumptions Mike was relying upon for his argument, namely "no expert has ever claimed the Zapruder film was altered" -- was inaccurate. Secondly, I was demonstrating that just because the MSM hasn't reported evidence does not make it any less real or significant.

So anyone who makes the claim that there is a second head shot is left with 2 choices:

1) To contend the Z film is altered, something no expert has ever claimed...

Several experts have claimed exactly that, Mike. To name just one, for example, there is Dr. Roderick Ryan, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He is a retired scientist from KODAK, where he worked from 1947 until 1986 in several engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services--motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He received numerous awards and recognitions during his career including, The Scientific & Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1982. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. -- among many other commendations and recognitions. In other words, he is an expert. See Bloody Treason pages 154 -160 (TWYMAN) for more details on Dr. Ryans credentials and his conclusions, one of which is his opinion that the "blobs" had been "painted in". -- Not easy to summarily dismiss coming from one of his expertise, no?

Greg,

Hope you have been well!

I would have to read more on this before commenting. Initially I would expect to see such epic news in the New York Times....

I mean from a historical stand point, an expert coming forward to claim the z film is altered would be epic, would you not agree?

I've been pretty well, Mike. Thanks for asking. Other than a case of whiplash from a huge wave in Hawaii last month--I'm fine. Now, back to the topic. I really don't expect the MSM to print things like that, do you? As an example, I remember sending C-SPAN a copy of an LBJ taped phone conversation with HOOVER in which HOOVER tells LBJ that [paraphrased] "If Connally wouldn't have been in the way, the president would have been hit by all three shots!" Well, now think about that one for a minute, Mike. How could Connally, who was seated IN FRONT of JFK, ever have been in the way of a shot intended for JFK if the shooter was located behind JFK? Yet, you can go to C-SPAN and find that telephone conversation for yourself...but, will it EVER appear in the New York Times? Not a chance.

Greg,

Hope you recover well!

I have no doubt that if the mass media heard about this they would print it. They slaughter the political stem daily, why hold back now?

As for the LBJ tape, I have not heard it, and do not know the context to take it in.

Thanks, Mike. Here's the memorandum Hoover dictated to his secretary at the completion of the phone call to memorialize it:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

1:39 p.m. November 29, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. TOLSON MR. BELMONT MR. MOHR MR. CONRAD MR. DE LOACH MR. EVANS MR. ROSEN MR. SULLIVAN

The President called and asked if I am familiar with the proposed group they are trying to get to study my report - two from the House, two from the Senate, two from the courts, and a couple of outsiders. I replied that I had not heard of that but had seen reports from the Senate Investigating Committee.

The President stated he wanted to get by just with my file and my report. I told him I thought it would be very bad to have a rash of investigations. He then indicated the only way to stop it is to appoint a high-level committee to evaluate my report and tell the House and Senate not to go ahead with the investigation. I stated that would be a three-ring circus.

The President then asked what I think about Allen Dulles, and I replied that he is a good man. He then asked about John McCloy, and I stated I am not as enthusiastic about McCloy, that he is a good man but I am not so certain as to the matter of publicity he might want. The President then mentioned General (Lauris) Norstad, and I said he is a good man. He said in the House he might try (Hale) Boggs and (Gerald R.) Ford and in the Senate (Richard B.) Russell and (John Sherman) Cooper. I asked him about Cooper and he indicated Cooper of Kentucky whom he described as a judicial man, stating he would not want (Jacob K.) Javits. I agreed on this point. He then reiterated Ford of Michigan, and I indicated I know of him but do not know him and had never seen him except on television the other day and that he handled himself well on television. I indicated that I do know Boggs.

The President then mentioned that (Walter) Jenkins had told him that I have designated Mr. DeLoach to work with them as he had on the Hill. He indicated they appreciated that and just wanted to tell me they consider Mr. DeLoach as high class as I do, and that they salute me for knowing how to pick good men.

I advised the President that we hope to have the investigation wrapped up today but probably won't have it before the first of the week as an angle in Mexico is giving trouble - the matter of Oswald's getting $6500 from the Cuban Embassy and coming back to this country with it; that we are not able to prove that fact; that we have information he was there on September 18 and we are able to prove he was in New Orleans on that date; that a story came in changing the date to September 28 and he was in Mexico on the 28th. I related that the police have again arrested Duran, a member of the Cuban Embassy; that they will hold her two or three days; will confront her with the original informant; and will also try a lie detector test on her.

The President then inquired if I pay any attention to the lie detector test. I answered that I would not pay 100% attention to them; that it was only a psychological asset in investigation; that I would not want to be a part of sending a man to the chair on a lie detector test. I explained that we have used them in bank investigations and a person will confess before the lie detector test is finished, more or less fearful it will show him guilty. I said the lie detector test has this psychological advantage. I further stated that it is a misnomer to call it a lie detector since the evaluation of the chart made by the machine is made by a human being and any human being is apt to make the wrong interpretation.

I stated, if Oswald had lived and had take a lie detector test, this with the evidence we have would have added that much strength to the case; that these is no question he is the man.

I also told him that Rubenstein down there has offered to take a lie detector test but his lawyer must be consulted first; that I doubt the lawyer will allow him to do so; that he has a West Coast lawyer somewhat like the Edward Bennett Williams type and almost as much of a shyster.

The President asked if we have any relationship between the two (Oswald and Rubenstein) as yet. I replied that at the present time we have not; that there was a story that the fellow had been in Rubenstein's nightclub but it has not been confirmed. I told the President that Rubenstein is a very seedy character, had a bad record - street brawls, fights, etc.; that in Dallas, if a fellow came into his nightclub and could not pay his bill completely, Rubenstein would beat him up and throw him out; that he did not drink or smoke; that he was an egomaniac; that he likes to be in the limelight; knew all of the police officers in the white light district; let them come in and get food and liquor, etc.; and that is how I think he got into police headquarters. I said if they ever made any move, the pictures did not show it even when they saw him approach and he got right up to Oswald and pressed the pistol against Oswald's stomach; that neither officer on either side made any effort to grab Rubenstein - not until after the pistol was fired. I said, secondly, the chief of police admits he moved Oswald in the morning as a convenience and at the request of motion picture people who wanted daylight. I said insofar as tying Rubenstein and Oswald together, we have not yet done so; that there are a number of stories which tied Oswald to the Civil Liberties Union in New York in which he applied for membership and to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee which is pro-Castro, directed by communists, and financed to some extent by the Castro Government.

The President asked how many shots were fired, and I told him three. He then asked if any were fired at him. I said no, that three shots were fired at the President and we have them. I stated that our ballistic experts were able to prove the shots were fired by this gun; that the President was hit by the first and third bullets and the second hit the Governor; that there were three shots; that one complete bullet rolled out of the President's head; that it tore a large part of the President's head off; that in trying to massage his heart on the way into the hospital they loosened the bullet which fell on the stretcher and we have that.

He then asked were they aimed at the President. I replied they were aimed at the President, no question about that.

I further advised him that we have also tested the fact you could fire those three shots in three seconds. I explained that there is a story out that there must have been more than one man to fire several shots but we have proven it could be done by one man.

The President then asked how it happened that Connally was hit. I explained that Connally turned to the President when the first shot was fired and in that turning he got hit. The President then asked, if Connally had not been in his seat, would the President have been hit by the second shot. I said yes.

I related that on the fifth floor of the building where we found the gun and the wrapping paper we found three empty shells that had been fired and one that had not been fired. that he had four but didn't fire the fourth; then threw the gun aside; went down the steps; was seen by a police officer; the manager told the officer that Oswald was all right, worked there; they let him go; he got on a bus; went to his home and got a jacket; then came back downtown, walking; the police officer who was killed stopped him, not knowing who he was; and he fired and killed the police officer.

The President asked if we can prove that and I answered yes.

I further related that Oswald then walked another two blocks; went to the theater; the woman selling tickets was so suspicious - said he was carrying a gun when he went into the theater - that she notified the police; the police and our man went in and located Oswald. I told him they had quite a struggle with Oswald but that he was subdued and shown out and taken to police headquarters.

I advised the President that apparently Oswald had come down the steps from the fifth floor; that apparently the elevator was not used.

The President then indicated our conclusions are: (1) he is the one who did it; (2) after the President was hit, Governor Connally was hit; (3) the President would have been hit three times except for the fact that Governor Connally turned after the first shot and was hit by the second; (4) whether he was connected with the Cuban operation with money we are trying to nail down. I told him that is what we are trying to nail down; that we have copies of the correspondence; that none of the letters dealt with any indication of violence or assassination; that they were dealing with a visa to go back to Russia.

I advised the President that his wife had been very hostile, would not cooperate and speaks only Russian; that yesterday she said, if we could give assurance she would be allowed to remain in the country, she would cooperate; and that I told our agents to give that assurance and sent a Russian-speaking agent to Dallas last night to interview her. I said I do not know whether or not she has any information but we would learn what we could. The President asked how Oswald had access to the fifth floor of the building. I replied that he had access to all floors. The President asked where was his office and I stated he did not have any particular place; that he was not situated in any particular place; that he was just a general packer of requisitions that came in for books from Dallas schools; that he would have had proper access to the fifth and sixth floors whereas usually the employees were down on lower floors. The President then inquired if anybody saw him on the fifth floor, and I stated he was seen by one of the workmen before the assassination.

The President then asked if we got a picture taken of him shooting the gun and I said no. He asked what was the picture sold for $25,000, and I advised him this was a picture of the parade showing Mrs. Kennedy crawling out of the back seat; that there was no Secret Service Agent on the back of the car; that in the past they have added steps on the back of the car and usually had an agent on either side standing on the bumper; that I did not know why this was not done - that the President may have requested it; that the bubble top was not up but I understand the bubble top was not worth anything because it was made entirely of plastic; that I had learned much to my surprise that the Secret Service does not have any armored cars.

The President asked if I have a bulletproof car and I told him I most certainly have. I told him we use it here for my own use and, whenever we have any raids, we make use of the bulletproof car on them. I explained that it is a limousine which has been armorplated and that it looks exactly like any other car. I stated I think the President ought to have a bulletproof car; that from all I understand the Secret Service has had two cars with metal plates underneath the car to take care of hand grenades or bombs thrown out on the street. I said this is European; that there have been several such attempts on DeGaulle's life; but they do not do that in this country; that all assassinations have been with guns; and for that reason I think very definitely the President ought to always ride in a bulletproof car; that it certainly would prevent anything like this ever happening again; but that I do not mean a sniper could not snipe him from a window if he were exposed.

The President asked if I meant on his ranch he should be in a bulletproof car. I said I would think so; that the little car we rode around in when I was at the ranch should be bulletproofed; that it ought to be done very quietly. I told him we have four bulletproof cars in the Bureau: one on the West Coast, one in New York and two here. I said this could be done quietly without publicity and without pictures taken of it if handled properly and I think he should have one on his ranch.

The President then asked if I think all the entrances should be guarded. I replied by all means, that he had almost to be in the capacity of a so-called prisoner because without that security anything could be done. I told him lots of phone calls had been received over the last four or five days about threats on his life; that I talked to the Attorney General about the funeral procession from the White House to the Cathedral; that I was opposed to it. The President remarked that the Secret Service told them not to but the family wanted to do it.

I stated that was what the Attorney General told me but I was very much opposed to it. I further related that I saw the procession from the Capitol to the White House on Pennsylvania and, while they had police standing on the curbs, when the parade came, the police turned around and looked at the parade.

The President then stated he is going to take every precaution he can; that he wants to talk to me; and asked if I would put down my thoughts. He stated I was more than head of the FBI - I was his brother and his personal friend; that he knew I did not want anything to happen to his family; that he has more confidence in me than anybody in town; that he would not embroil me in a jurisdictional dispute; but that he did want to have my thoughts on the matter to advocate as his own opinion.

I stated I would be glad to do this for him and that I would do anything I can. The President expressed his appreciation.

Very truly yours,

[signed J. E. H.]

John Edgar Hoover Director

So anyone who makes the claim that there is a second head shot is left with 2 choices:

1) To contend the Z film is altered, something no expert has ever claimed...

Several experts have claimed exactly that, Mike. To name just one, for example, there is Dr. Roderick Ryan, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He is a retired scientist from KODAK, where he worked from 1947 until 1986 in several engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services--motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He received numerous awards and recognitions during his career including, The Scientific & Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1982. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. -- among many other commendations and recognitions. In other words, he is an expert. See Bloody Treason pages 154 -160 (TWYMAN) for more details on Dr. Ryans credentials and his conclusions, one of which is his opinion that the "blobs" had been "painted in". -- Not easy to summarily dismiss coming from one of his expertise, no?

Greg,

Hope you have been well!

I would have to read more on this before commenting. Initially I would expect to see such epic news in the New York Times....

I mean from a historical stand point, an expert coming forward to claim the z film is altered would be epic, would you not agree?

I've been pretty well, Mike. Thanks for asking. Other than a case of whiplash from a huge wave in Hawaii last month--I'm fine. Now, back to the topic. I really don't expect the MSM to print things like that, do you? As an example, I remember sending C-SPAN a copy of an LBJ taped phone conversation with HOOVER in which HOOVER tells LBJ that [paraphrased] "If Connally wouldn't have been in the way, the president would have been hit by all three shots!" Well, now think about that one for a minute, Mike. How could Connally, who was seated IN FRONT of JFK, ever have been in the way of a shot intended for JFK if the shooter was located behind JFK? Yet, you can go to C-SPAN and find that telephone conversation for yourself...but, will it EVER appear in the New York Times? Not a chance.

Everyone please note:

1. Multiple posts, predominately from Jim Fetzer, moved from this thread to the PC board as they were primarily about 9-11 and not JFK.

2. Members Jim Fetzer and David Lifton have been restricted from posting for 72 hours because of rule violations. Both have been excessively insulting towards each other and other members, and have engaged in off-topic posting. Jim and David will be able to see the board but will not be able to post until about 2330 GMT on Tuesday 31 May 2011.

ANYONE POSTING ON BEHALF OF A MEMBER UNDER RESTRICTIONS WILL BE SUBJECT TO A 72 HOURS RESTRICTION ON POSTING THEMSELVES, WITHOUT WARNING.

Please, keep on topic and be civil to each other. You can disagree and still show basic civility.

Thank you.

Jim Fetzer is visiting me here in San Diego for a few days. Rest assured I have not and will not post anything for him and he has not asked that I post for him. However, I am very curious as to why his posting privilege is still suspended? After all, according to Evan's post (above) both he and Lifton had their posting privileges suspended for 72 hours. Yet, David's ability to post has already been restored long since, but Jim's has not. Is there an explanation for this?

Hmmm. I agree, Mike--it might be worthwhile, but it's hard to tell considering the "sources" of information, e.g., wiki-anything. I hadn't checked it out any further than noticing it was new and available at Amazon! I didn't intend to "endorse" it--if that's how it appeared. I only meant to report its existence.

I didn't think for a second you were endorsing it Greg. I think I know you well enough to say if you were endorsing something, we all would know it.

Thanks, Mike.

Hmmm. I agree, Mike--it might be worthwhile, but it's hard to tell considering the "sources" of information, e.g., wiki-anything. I hadn't checked it out any further than noticing it was new and available at Amazon! I didn't intend to "endorse" it--if that's how it appeared. I only meant to report its existence.

There is an apparently new 184 page paperback book available from Amazon.com: Researchers of the John F. Kennedy Assassination: Cyril Wecht, Luis Walter Alvarez, Oliver Stone, James H. Fetzer, Mark Lane, Dorothy Kilgallen

LINK: Order here

So anyone who makes the claim that there is a second head shot is left with 2 choices:

1) To contend the Z film is altered, something no expert has ever claimed...

Several experts have claimed exactly that, Mike. To name just one, for example, there is Dr. Roderick Ryan, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He is a retired scientist from KODAK, where he worked from 1947 until 1986 in several engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services--motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He received numerous awards and recognitions during his career including, The Scientific & Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1982. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. -- among many other commendations and recognitions. In other words, he is an expert. See Bloody Treason pages 154 -160 (TWYMAN) for more details on Dr. Ryans credentials and his conclusions, one of which is his opinion that the "blobs" had been "painted in". -- Not easy to summarily dismiss coming from one of his expertise, no?

Despite what Ray claims was true about Garrison's beliefs about Oswald, in this lecture we actually get to hear from Garrison's own mouth what he believed was true about Oswald. One should note that this lecture ocurred prior to the start of Clay Shaw's trial. It is a must hear, IMO:

LINK: Garrison Lecture

LINK: Questions & Answers

One should note the many examples Garrison offers to exonerate Oswald of ALL guilt in the crime. At one point, during the question & answer segment, he even characterizes Oswald as a patriot.

How is it that Ray is allowed to refer to another forum member as someone who will always be despised? Is this not an ad hom? Is it not tantamount to calling Mark despicable?

I tend to agree with Bernice here. I don't think Moorman is all that impressive of a witness, no matter what your views are. If she'd been questioned adequately early on, as she would have been in an honest investigation, then her input almost certainly would have been very valuable.

I also find it a bit unseemly that she appears to have a desire to discredit Jean Hill. With Hill no longer around to defend herself, that just strikes me the wrong way, especially since (I think) they were at one time close friends.

Exactly my sentiments, Don.

Update:

Jack is doing very well in his recovery. Not too sore, from what I understand--and is doing the recommended walking etc. to expedite recovery. It was a good report, to be sure.

KUTGW, Jack!

Greetings, John!

I am very pleased that you have experienced my home state and have found it good. It is home, to be sure. My wife and I went to Hawaii about 6 weeks ago to celebrate our anniversary. We had a great trip, although I got tossed about by a HUGE wave on our second day, resulting in whiplash! But, wherever we have travelled, which has been fairly extensive, we ALWAYS love coming back home to San Diego. I will probably never make my primary residence elsewhere. Nothing compares to it, in my opinion...and I am grateful to be fortunate enough to live here.

Living in San Francisco was, for me, a dream come true. It was not easy to get used to, after knowing where everything was in NYC, but I found myself transformed by the natural beauty and the people. One needs to have an embracing attitude though; whether it is the cost, the density, the eccentricities, or at times the rather arrogant sense of entitlement of those who live there that the rest of us have to deal with. I was dragged away from SF kicking and screaming and now my family keeps me in the Twin Cities, but I am committed to spending as much time there and in CA as I can.

I have just come back from San Francisco. It is my favourite US city. One of the reasons I like San Francisco is that it fully embraces change. It has been argued that every technological advance that has taken place over the last 100 years can be traced back to California. Kevin Starr, the author of California (2005) has argued that the character of the people of the state has been moulded by the 1848 Californian Gold Rush.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAgoldrushC.htm

I am also very fond of San Diego. Both cities have that relaxed, tolerant attitude that reflects the best of the US. I was less impressed with Los Angeles. However, the real highlight of the trip was spending time in Yosemite. We don’t have places like that in the UK.

Well, I live in downtown San Diego, and it is anything but a ghetto! I was born here in 1957, so I've seen it over decades. It is not a ghetto. Not even close. We were in San Francisco last month, it is not a ghetto either. We were in Los Angeles last week, and although I really don't care for LA, it's not a ghetto as a whole. There are seedy areas in any city the size of LA, but... We also were in Sonoma last year--awesome place. We drove home down the coast (Pacific Coast Highway)--nothing ghetto like there, either. My daughter was married in Santa Barbara 3 years ago, not a ghetto.

When you came back, did you only visit Watts?

You will find a very detailed history of California here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWcalifornia.htm

I grew up in Southern California and loved it...surfin, crusin, sun most of the time, drive to the snow in the winter, neat. I left to go into the service in 1963, retired and went home in 1988 and found I was priced-out of living there. Went back again in 2008, and realized what a ghetto the entire place has become, couldn't leave fast enough.

It's a shame, it once was a great place to live.

Nice catch, Martin.

Moorman said she was on the grass, not the street, when taking the infamous Polaroid picture.

I wonder why she said that, when during her interview on Elm Street with Gary Mack, he had to prevent her from saying "we stepped out into the street" multiple times?

Curious.

Yikes, even more scary!

Scary, Evan. I can't imagine even driving in a 60's - 70's anything from Russia--let alone flying in it!

Here's a KGB version of a GAZ-M-21 escort vehicle used by their Secret Service:

It still looks cool--But, trust it driving to Siberia and back? Not a chance...

Like I said, I'm agnostic on it. I don't know. However, some of the photographic issues that have been

raised were/are thought provoking. However, I'll stay out of that one, too--just not my area.

Welcome, Martin!

I thought I recognized your name from the JFKresearch Forum. Good to see you here.

I just received a very interesting email from the 6th Floor Museum in response to my inquiry of

April 9. Both emails are below.

-----Original Message-----

From: Greg Burnham [jfkresearch@cox.net]

Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 5:54 PM

To: Megan Bryant

Subject: Zapruder Film

To whom it may concern:

Does the museum possess large format transparencies of the Zapruder film made in

1963 or 1964, approximately 4 x 5 inches in size, and unmounted? Doug Horne, of

the Assassination Records Review Board, viewed same in 1997.

Sincerely,

Greg Burnham

====================================================

Dear Mr. Burnham:

The Sixth Floor Museum does not have—and never did have—4”x5” color

transparencies prepared by Time-LIFE in 1963/1964 from the 8mm original Abraham

Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. The collection donated to the

Museum in December 1999 by the Zapruder family did include the 4x5 color

transparencies made in March 1997 for the MPI Media video project titled Image

of an Assassination. Documentation from late December 1999 and early January

2000 confirms the Museum expected to, and did, receive these MPI transparencies

from the Zapruder family.

Just prior to the December 1999 acquisition, an inventory provided to the Museum

listed an additional 27 4x5 color LIFE transparencies. That, in combination

with a verbal comment by Zapruder family lawyer Jamie Silverberg, was

misinterpreted to mean the collection would include, simply, LIFE

transparencies. From that misunderstanding, the Museum issued an inaccurate

press release on January 25, 2000. Museum curator Gary Mack repeated the

information to Dallas Morning News reporter Mark Wrolstad and his article

appeared the next day. Soon after receiving the donation, but after the press

release appeared, Mr. Mack confirmed that the Museum did in fact receive the MPI

1997 transparencies. They included unique reference numbers added by MPI

photographers in 1997 to identify specific frames of the film.

Recently, with the assistance of retired Kodak scientist Roland Zavada, the

Museum learned that the other 4x5 transparencies in the donation were made on

film stock manufactured in 1965 or possibly 1966. Whether they were part of a

complete series of frames is unknown, as the donation did not include any

explanatory Time-LIFE records.

The whereabouts today of the 1963/1964 Time-LIFE transparencies is not known to

The Sixth Floor Museum. Time-LIFE may have records indicating what happened to

them.

I cannot comment on what Doug Horne may have or have not viewed in 1997, as this

was prior to the Museum's acquisition of the Zapruder collection.

Thank you,

Megan P. Bryant

Director of Collections & Intellectual Property

The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza

411 Elm Street

Dallas, Texas 75202

(214) 747-6660

meganb@jfk.org