Greg Burnham

...Likewise, even though a hollow-point will slightly flatten and distort upon impact with soft flesh of the rabbit/squirrell, it still will not destruct to the extent as did the head-shot bullet of the Z313 impact to the head of JFK... (emphasis added)

Hmmm...

A special note of thanks to Monk, who was the person

who suggested that I interview Adele. The show will

be archived in its entirety at "The Real Deal" archive,

which can be found at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

Great news, Jim.

Thanks

My pleasure, Jim. She is an outstanding source of first hand information and a real gem.

Just for info, the link to your blog spot that you posted does not seem to be working properly. However,

Adele on The Real Deal is working fine.

Great news, Jim.

Thanks

I first began this thread over six years ago. Since that time I have covered a lot of research ground and believe that Prouty is a guy who may have shot from the hip a little to much which caused his aim to be off at times. On the other hand I do believe that he was positioned to know some information about the way that things were supposed to have been done in Dallas and was knowledgable enough to know that something had gone wrong. Even more I might suggest that while he could not quite pinpoint exactly what went wrong Prouty may have allowed his speculations to become sure facts within his own mind which has created some problems. ...

Let me ask this question since you've done so much work along these lines, Jim: has anyone ever substantiated that Fletch Prouty actually did what he said he did? For work, that is?

Duke,

Are you really suggesting that Fletcher "made it all up" -- or made up a substantial portion of it? Seriously? You should contact Oliver Stone who vetted him prior to

relying on his information for the character of "X" in the movie, JFK.

Jim,

I mentioned to Fletcher that, in my opinion, it wouldn't be surprising if Maxwell Taylor resented JFK's having snubbed him and SECDEF McNamara by having others (namely, Krulak and Prouty) write

the actual "report" that bore their name: The McNamara-Taylor Report. It seems that McNamara, being a civilian and "new" to the military, would tolerate such a thing much better than would an Old

Horse, seasoned, veteran, Military "macho" Man like Taylor. Fletcher agreed. Of course, such a thing would not be enough to constitute sufficient motive for Taylor to participate in the plot. However,

it may have well served to be the "final straw" needed to get him on-board. Up until then, he might have believed that he could out maneuver and/or manipulate the president into being more cooperative

regarding Vietnam. I would think that any illusions he had maintained to that effect were virtually shattered by JFK's pulling an "end around" his top brass and "writing" their report for them, which actually

recommended the complete withdrawal of all US Personnel by the end of 1965, resulting in NSAM 263. There should be no question in 2011 that this was a MILITARY OPERATION, primarily, with support

from various intelligence agencies that are beyond military (DIA, ONI, etc) ... including CIA and even FBI personnel.

Deleted by member

What are you talking about now? I didn't say that none of it was usable nor that I failed to bring back useful images! I said the majority was usable. In fact, over 95% is usable. Let me define "usable" in the sense I wrote it:

"ALL FRAMES WITHIN SEVERAL TAKES OF THE COMPLETE FILM FOOTAGE EXPOSED ARE EXTREMELY CLEAR AND ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS" !!!!!

I shot 6 rolls and Scott shot several more using his own B&H cameras (yes plural) during the same period of time. There is a TON (figuratively speaking) to work with. However, I have passed off a lot of the film for analysis

by folks much better suited and more capable than I.

There are constraints with which to deal, so I have no time frame on results yet. However, I also don't have the budget nor the personnel nor the facilities available to me that the USGOV had available to them either.

My bad. I read UNusable. My apologies.

Goos luck with your footage. I can't wait to see what it brings.

No problem, Craig. Thanks for the apology.

Jim,

That's very interesting, indeed. Perhaps artistic license, perhaps based on truth, but Stone also has the Garrison character say (Kevin Costner) that "...all it takes is someone on the inside. Just one traitor is all it took. Ever read your Shakespeare, Bill? Julius Caesar?" [paraphrased]

Maxwell Taylor is certainly someone that BOTH brothers, JFK and RFK, would NEVER have even seen coming at them...never. If your supposition is true, it would explain a lot.

Those who pulled the JFK murder off would be complete IDIOTS if they did NOT alter that film (being one of the BEST possible witnesses to the entire event that terrible day). There is simply NO way you would allow a film of that kind of historical worth go unmolested, I don't care who pulled it off. They murdered so many witnessed, items disappearing left and right, you name it, yet the film walks away untouched???....come on. Growing up, just off the bat, I had assumed the film received some kind of high tech alteration, it had to have. Now, things are becoming clear....I guess. Here's hoping anyway.

Hey Greg, do you think Kodak is the only source capable of processing such film? Maybe others can no? I am NOT film-intelligent lol, so forgive any apparent ignorance regarding the subject.

Hi B.A.,

Kodak retains the rights to the processing procedure of that film stock. It is not "normal" film and is not developed in any standard type of manner. There is a Kodak specific "process" that must be employed in

order to accomplish the task. The absolute very last remaining facility that was licensed by Kodak to use their system of processing was Dwayne's Photo. They processed my film at the end of December, as well.

Kodak announced in 2006 that it would completely discontinue it worldwide by the end of December in 2010 (last year). So, that's it forever. I don't believe even the "know-how" to do it is available outside of

Kodak.

Now Ektachrome is still available, but I wanted to replicate as closely as possible the same conditions and use the same materials as were originally used to prevent nay-sayers from claiming the tests were not

valid due to those differences. As it is, the actual so-called "original Zapruder Camera" housed in the National Archives would have been my first choice, but obtaining usage of it wasn't going to happen. It is

likely that any differences between Ektachrome and Kodachrome will NOT make a bit of difference anyway, but this way we don't have to deal with that argument at all.

Monk,

Any full zoom left to right *pan* footage (from the Z-pedestal)from the corner of Main and Elm down to the overpass...?

David

Yes David,

Except I think you meant to say from Houston & Elm (not Main, since it doesn't intersect with Elm) down to the underpass. That's just about all I shot--all 6 rolls. Of course I did do tests in San Diego, too, but with

Ektachrome.

Robin,

I thought I remembered that they were from the MPI and that Costella had something to do with it, but I didn't want to say until I was sure.

I just received this from John:

"Yes they are frames that I processed. I think that this was even earlier than the 2002 set of frames. I attached the ghost panels and copied the number across

to the middle of the sprocket holes (reversing black and white). So I would guess that this is 2002 -- my processed frames which were obtained originally from

MPI.

J"

"ALL FRAMES WITHIN SEVERAL TAKES OF THE COMPLETE FILM FOOTAGE EXPOSED ARE EXTREMELY CLEAR AND ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS" !!!!!

Very nice!

Great work Greg

Thanks Dean!

Those who pulled the JFK murder off would be complete IDIOTS if they did NOT alter that film (being one of the BEST possible witnesses to the entire event that terrible day). There is simply NO way you would allow a film of that kind of historical worth go unmolested, I don't care who pulled it off. They murdered so many witnessed, items disappearing left and right, you name it, yet the film walks away untouched???....come on. Growing up, just off the bat, I had assumed the film received some kind of high tech alteration, it had to have. Now, things are becoming clear....I guess. Here's hoping anyway.

Hey Greg, do you think Kodak is the only source capable of processing such film? Maybe others can no? I am NOT film-intelligent lol, so forgive any apparent ignorance regarding the subject.

Hi B.A.,

Kodak retains the rights to the processing procedure of that film stock. It is not "normal" film and is not developed in any standard type of manner. There is a Kodak specific "process" that must be employed in

order to accomplish the task. The absolute very last remaining facility that was licensed by Kodak to use their system of processing was Dwayne's Photo. They processed my film at the end of December, as well.

Kodak announced in 2006 that it would completely discontinue it worldwide by the end of December in 2010 (last year). So, that's it forever. I don't believe even the "know-how" to do it is available outside of

Kodak.

Now Ektachrome is still available, but I wanted to replicate as closely as possible the same conditions and use the same materials as were originally used to prevent nay-sayers from claiming the tests were not

valid due to those differences. As it is, the actual so-called "original Zapruder Camera" housed in the National Archives would have been my first choice, but obtaining usage of it wasn't going to happen. It is

likely that any differences between Ektachrome and Kodachrome will NOT make a bit of difference anyway, but this way we don't have to deal with that argument at all.

Oh? How so? Is it worse than not making the attempt at all, Craig? How do you know what the "proper execution"

might be? How do you know that such "proper execution" was not employed? Me thinks Jack is correct, perhaps

I should just ignore your posts in the future.

If you failed to bring back usable images it was improper execution. And since you did not bring back useful images you might as well have stayed home. Your work was worthless.

This was, in your words, the last chance to shoot Kodachrome in a BH414. SO did you have a camera expert run a complete CLA on your vintage camera? Did you do multiple test shoots PRIOR to heading to Dallas for this last chance opportunity? Did you run tests of the Kodachrome film stock you had to assure it was still viable prior? Heck did you even shoot any Ektachrome stock while in Dallas as a backup so at least you had images of some sort?

If you want to ignore my posts be my guest. Given you directed your original post in this matter TO ME, however, tells a completely different story.

Again what a WASTED opportunity.

What are you talking about now? I didn't say that none of it was usable nor that I failed to bring back useful images! I said the majority was usable. In fact, over 95% is usable. Let me define "usable" in the sense I wrote it:

"ALL FRAMES WITHIN SEVERAL TAKES OF THE COMPLETE FILM FOOTAGE EXPOSED ARE EXTREMELY CLEAR AND ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS" !!!!!

I shot 6 rolls and Scott shot several more using his own B&H cameras (yes plural) during the same period of time. There is a TON (figuratively speaking) to work with. However, I have passed off a lot of the film for analysis

by folks much better suited and more capable than I.

There are constraints with which to deal, so I have no time frame on results yet. However, I also don't have the budget nor the personnel nor the facilities available to me that the USGOV had available to them either.

I'm a college student currently writing a term paper on the JFK Assassination with a specific focus of inquiry on whether the CIA or elements of it were involved. I just finished Fletcher Prouty's book on JFK & Vietnam and am wondering whether he is considered a credible source by other assassination experts. I think he has some good info but his lack of sources and proneness to speculation makes some of his claims seem suspect.

Alex,

Welcome to the forum --

I knew him well. I have no reason to doubt his reportage of his direct experience, nor his interpretation of what those experiences mean to the "big picture". In fact, the opposite is true.

However, that is a luxury I enjoy that many do not. So, I no longer expect others to feel as confident as I do; which confidence is based on my own personal perceptions of the man. I encourage you to evaluate the man for yourself, as best you can, through his account and through your own honest evaluation of the world around you.

Collected Works of Colonel L Fletcher Prouty

Good luck with your pursuit of the truth--and/or your school paper, as the case may be.

And, again, welcome to the forum.

The majority of the footage came out usable. I am uncertain as to exactly what I will learn from it that might be

useful, if anything.

But, I at least seized that last opportunity to get the footage.

Below shooting from pedestal with Scott Myers (back to camera)

What a shame the opportuntiy was spoiled by improper execution....

Oh? How so? Is it worse than not making the attempt at all, Craig? How do you know what the "proper execution"

might be? How do you know that such "proper execution" was not employed? Me thinks Jack is correct, perhaps

I should just ignore your posts in the future.

That's a great question, Robin. I knew at one time, but now I really don't remember. Let me check my notes etc., and/or make some calls.

Robin,

I didn't get a sense that he was offended at all, only a bit mystified. In my experience with John, he's pretty straight forward about that sort of thing.

I was unaware of it, Nick. Unfortunately, KODAK has ceased processing any and all Kodachrome film in the future. December of 2010 was the last month that

it could still be processed. So, if that film was never exposed and processed by now, it will never be able to be processed/developed in the future.

But many thanks for the offer.

Hi Robin,

I just got this from John:

"In the original set (2002) I had masked out the edges and ghost panel shapes. That blue was my standard mask colour. But then I realised that by doing so I was preventing people from seeing the edges of the frames and the edges of the sprocket holes. So for the 2006 re-analysis I just left the rectangular ghost panels there. The registration was also much improved in the 2006 set.

Washing out the colour prevents people from noticing that there's no blood in the film except for those few painted-in blob frames around 313. Couldn't imagine why anyone would want to revert to that.

Cheers

J"

Well, I did the first stage of something that Craig Lamson has demanded others do, but was unwilling to do

himself. Namely, I put my money, time, and effort where my mouth is and conducted experiments in Dealey

Plaza this past fall.

It is likely that the first time a Bell & Howell Director's Model camera was used to expose KODACHROME film

from the pedestal in Dealey Plaza was on November 22, 1963 at approximately 12:30 in the afternoon.

This past November 22, 2010 it is certain that I shot the very LAST footage from that same location at that

precise time with that same model equipment using the same film stock that will ever be shot from there and

able to be processed! I shot 6 rolls of KODACHROME over a 2.5 hour interval starting at 11:45am and continuing

nearly non-stop, except for changing film rolls, until just before 2:00pm, including of course during the time of

the original event. I shot at both regular speed and in slow motion.

The majority of the footage came out usable. I am uncertain as to exactly what I will learn from it that might be

useful, if anything.

But, I at least seized that last opportunity to get the footage.

Below shooting from pedestal with Scott Myers (back to camera)

quote:

What you have done looks good and MELLOW in color...but how do you know that your "corrections" match the characteristics of Kodachrome?

Hi Jack

I never attemptedt to match exact Kodachrome film.

I much prefered Costella's original early frames.( the ones with the blue border ) to my eyes they had a very nice coloring .

I don't know why he changed that version, and replaced it with the new frames, perhaps you could ask him for me.

No other version of the z-frames have that color saturated look, MPI frames and the 6th floor museum Zapruder frames closer match the frames i posted, than the new costella frames

I'm sure that in the early days Costella must have thought the same way as i do, his earlier blue border frames, were much more pleasing to my eye.

Robin.

Thanks, Robin. I am not "putting down" your work at all, and the coloration is not extremely important.

And we have NO way of knowing whether the color should be mellow or bright.

I do remember discussions with John where he said he thought the colors of the MPI version did not

match what he knew of Kodachrome. I will be glad to give you an email address for John if you want to

consult with him. He likely would be interested in your MELLOW version of his frames.

Jack

I already sent the link to John yesterday. He was curious as to why you (Robin) "shifted the color back to MPI?"

I can see you worked extremely hard to put this together. I just thought the typo was kinda funny...so did John.

Who is "Costello" -- perhaps Abbott's partner?

Hi John,

I used to be in the music business and managed a Rock 'n' Roll band in the late 1980's called "VANCOUVER" -- a great group of only 3 musicians.

We opened for "Badfinger" during their tour, although the group was no longer the same since two key members of the original did not survive by

their own hand.

Those two unfortunately chose a permanent solution to a temporary emotional state, thus depriving the world of their artistic genius in the process.

Command area on the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD): Cliff Carter, Carlos Marcello, Jack Rubenstein, George Reese;

Carlos was in court in N. O., no?

You are correct, David. Carlos Marcello was in court that day and David Ferrie was with him.