David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
"RALLY AROUND THOMPSON IN HIS TIME OF NEED?"
?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Is that an admission that he is losing and needs help
from other losers?
Or as David would say, ROTFALMFAO!
Jack :-)
In my opinion, there are 2 groups of losers ...
those who talk and act like this is a game,
and those who seriously want to read and participate in reasoned give and take
on the evidence, but can't because
the first group of losers make it difficult or impossible.
think solutions, Barb! 40+years of give-n-take. S-O-L-U-T-I-O-N-S
-
Barb,
I thought you might want to know that someone has been posting
the most dishonest and ridiculous drivel and signing your name to it.
Jim
Hi John,
Tink does not generally hang out there ... or anywhere. Someone
started a thing suggesting Tink is a disinfo person, Pamela did her
bit to stir the embers. Aside from allegations that SSID was a book to
lead people astray, an article Tink and Jerry Logan and myself wrote
last summer on whether or not there was a through-and-through hole in
the windshield became part of the discussion as did, of course, the
authenticity of the Z film .... things seem to be winding down a bit
.... Fetzer being scarce the last few days after being whacked quite a
bit, Pamela being scolded rather soundly by Lifton about her joining
the Fetzer fest in maligning Tink, but Jack continues to pop up like a
whack a mole character saying "read Horne IV" to just about anything
someone says..... sigh. A soap opera of sorts....
Barb :-)
and
Tink has handlked himself well
thru this ... and he is quite aware already. And it's about over.
Support would be good though. Even David Lifton, who is at odds with
Tink on most everything, at odds with Tink, Jerry and I on our
articles, and is tight with Fetzer and his merry little band, came on
and blasted the very idea that anyone would stoop to this character
assassination. Kudos to Lifton for that ... many are intimidated there
to speak the courage of their convictions lest they end up on the
receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few. Others have been
willing to step up to the plate and say, "whoa."
Barb :-)
McAdams replied:
I think it is time for some of this at this forum to
>> >rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,
>> >what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.
>> >We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,
>> >Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,
>> >Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.
>>
>> >Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.
>> >But he has always been civil and a good sport.
>> >We should put all that behind us and log on to the
>> >Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure
>> >he would much appreciate it.
>>
>> >Who is with me?
No, that was not McAdams reply, those words were posted by someone who calls himself Whiskey Joe. Pretty selective in what you culled from the mod group .... no small wonder given the things being said about you there. :-) As for my comments .... just a quick round up synopsis, like a Soap Opera digest, for those commenting on the little bits that they've heard of the goings on here.
Now, James, if you are interested in discussing evidence .... let's discuss. If this is all you are interested in doing, and that would seem to be the case, then please locate your "off" button and keep it engaged so as to not impede, distract or intimidate those who are interested in discussing the evidence.
Such childish games, imo.
'Nuf!
.john's place, alt.assassination.jfk. Is that the place that clears and approves every single post posted there (for the past 10 years since its inception)?
Checked for direct ad hominems, situations getting out of hand in that direction only .... and spam ads and off topic cross posts weeded out. That's all. Period.
But then you already know that, though I don't think the mod group has ever been graced by your presence, so you don't know anything of your own accord .... and have never been on the inside of the mod process, so of course, you don't know about that either.
And that groups mandate when conceived was what, again? Weren't you a moderator there beholden to .john? Such childish games, yes indeed....'Nuf! LMAO!
The concept was an open forum for all who wanted to discuss the case without the intimidation that runs rampant on what's affectionately known as the nuthouse. And it has been one of the most successful forums on the net for years with a mix of CTs and LNs getting along for the most part and actually accomplishing discussion of evidence. Yes, I was once a moderator, for about 2 yrs or so, occasionally fill in when needed rarely still. The only "mandate" is that there must always be at least 2 moderators ... one LN and one CT ... and that it takes BOTH of those moderators to agree that a post is over the line and should not be posted... if one moderator disagrees, the post goes up. If it's just a matter of a word or phrase or sentence that is over the line, the poster is given the opportunity to edit.
Sounds just horrible, doesn't it? :-)
So come on Barb, Dr. Josiah Thompson can take care of himself, he needs not you or John McAdams (.john) feeble support --quite frankly, he might just be looking at Zapruder film related posts recently posted here (including recent DHorne material) with different eyes (as I suspect have many).....Tink can and does take care of himself quite well. That some on the mod group (again, that was NOT McAdams' post) might want to speak out on his behalf is their personal choice, not any recruitment by Tink. But, imo, it speaks well of Tink's reputation in the community at large. Which, in my personal opinion, is one reason he is subjected to such attacks by some.
I have a new New Year's resolution: to avoid nonsense and smarmy unctuous emissions. Wish me luck! :-)
they drug you out of retirement for this? Only to say: "I have a new New Year's resolution: to avoid nonsense and smarmy unctuous emissions."
Oh-my..... it's the Zapruder film, Barb. This is all about the Zapruder Film... and yes, I'm sorry to say, the ONLY assassination issue that drives folks by the herd to this board...
Bests,
Paul Nolan (aka .john)
-
...
I don't have TGZFH book, but I saw the movie. The pedestal cross bothered me a long time ago.
Kathy
what movie? I'm in a movie and know nothing about it? Explain please...
-
Barb,
I thought you might want to know that someone has been posting
the most dishonest and ridiculous drivel and signing your name to it.
Jim
Hi John,
Tink does not generally hang out there ... or anywhere. Someone
started a thing suggesting Tink is a disinfo person, Pamela did her
bit to stir the embers. Aside from allegations that SSID was a book to
lead people astray, an article Tink and Jerry Logan and myself wrote
last summer on whether or not there was a through-and-through hole in
the windshield became part of the discussion as did, of course, the
authenticity of the Z film .... things seem to be winding down a bit
.... Fetzer being scarce the last few days after being whacked quite a
bit, Pamela being scolded rather soundly by Lifton about her joining
the Fetzer fest in maligning Tink, but Jack continues to pop up like a
whack a mole character saying "read Horne IV" to just about anything
someone says..... sigh. A soap opera of sorts....
Barb :-)
and
Tink has handlked himself well
thru this ... and he is quite aware already. And it's about over.
Support would be good though. Even David Lifton, who is at odds with
Tink on most everything, at odds with Tink, Jerry and I on our
articles, and is tight with Fetzer and his merry little band, came on
and blasted the very idea that anyone would stoop to this character
assassination. Kudos to Lifton for that ... many are intimidated there
to speak the courage of their convictions lest they end up on the
receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few. Others have been
willing to step up to the plate and say, "whoa."
Barb :-)
McAdams replied:
I think it is time for some of this at this forum to
>> >rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,
>> >what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.
>> >We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,
>> >Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,
>> >Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.
>>
>> >Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.
>> >But he has always been civil and a good sport.
>> >We should put all that behind us and log on to the
>> >Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure
>> >he would much appreciate it.
>>
>> >Who is with me?
No, that was not McAdams reply, those words were posted by someone who calls himself Whiskey Joe. Pretty selective in what you culled from the mod group .... no small wonder given the things being said about you there. :-) As for my comments .... just a quick round up synopsis, like a Soap Opera digest, for those commenting on the little bits that they've heard of the goings on here.
Now, James, if you are interested in discussing evidence .... let's discuss. If this is all you are interested in doing, and that would seem to be the case, then please locate your "off" button and keep it engaged so as to not impede, distract or intimidate those who are interested in discussing the evidence.
Such childish games, imo.
'Nuf!
.john's place, alt.assassination.jfk. Is that the place that clears and approves every single post posted there (for the past 10 years since its inception)? And that groups mandate when conceived was what, again? Weren't you a moderator there beholden to .john? Such childish games, yes indeed....
'Nuf! LMAO!
So come on Barb, Dr. Josiah Thompson can take care of himself, he needs not you or John McAdams (.john) feeble support --quite frankly, he might just be looking at Zapruder film related posts recently posted here (including recent DHorne material) with different eyes (as I suspect have many).....
-
Pam,
Duncan asked permission from Gary to post this--Gary did not ask him to.
Many people post what others say. Can we look at content instead of folks involved?
Since this is an important subject, we need all of the information we can get.
Thanks, Duncan!!
Kathy
With all due respect, I think you may be missing my point.
Gary Mack is a member here and should post for himself. Or start his own blog.
I object to the process -- it just creates a slanted field, imo.
At the very moment I was reading this post, aka Gary Mack was reading this thread. Why, ask your self why, he won't post here himself. His passing on [i don't buy others pulling - I believe it it is GM pushing (or a conspiracy to promote it en masse)] information here 'by other means' is very much akin to the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz...it is made to seem like it has some special imprimatur of authority - with smoke and mirrors [as with the Wizard]...from the lofty heights of the sixth floor mausoleum - where no one shot by Ruby two days later was situated, nor fired any shots. Can't people see how they are being manipulated in the exact same manner the our society has been since 12:30 in Dallas on 11/22/63!? The Sixth Floor museum has no authority; no corner on the facts - I'd make a strong argument to the contrapositive. This is PR and spin - voodoo Forum posting and I'm going to take a consensus if it shouldn't be stopped. If aka Mack wants his 'information' or opinions stated here, he himself should state them, or forever hold his peace here. IMO. He's not called the Pope of Dealey Plaza for nothing; and those of your genuflecting to him by posting his words [whatever the twisted logic or chain of evidence] - when he has the time and ability to read these threads and then post them himself are being used or using this Forum in a manner it was not meant to be used [or is that abused?].
-
So just to be clear Jim, you now agree that the MPI 4x5 transparencies constitute the best evidence available to us correct?
And you agree to accept them as the standard reference in the future, correct?
Why Jerry? The extant Zapruder film at NARA and the 4x5 trannies that LIFE made are available, yes?
Glad to oblige! It is important that the nonsense you and Jerry Logan are peddling be corrected "for the record", as you say. I've discussed this matter with Doug Horne in the meanwhile and therefore have great confidence in making the following important points, which I shall number:(1) As Doug explains in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), pages 1218-1219 and 1353, the dupe negative that is being studied is a fifth generation product, as you and Jerry have emphasized; however,
(2) the same artifacts noted by the Hollywood research group on the fifth generation dupe negative are also present on the MPI color positive transparencies held by the Sixth Floor Museum;
(3) those were made in 1997 at the Archives when the LMH Company hired MPI to photograph each frame of the film so that the Zapruders could sell their video product, "Image of An Assassination";
(4) not even Tink & Jerry can successfully question the evidence of alteration present on the dupe negative, since the artifacts of alteration are also present on the MPI transparencies, which are a first generation product;
(5) it is ironic that these transparencies are the ultimate guarantor of the fidelity of the fifth generation dupe negative, because they are in the custody of the Museum that is Gary Mack's employer;
(6) if the Museum were to suddenly stop allowing people to see them, then it--and Curator Gary Mack--would become even more blatantly a part of the cover-up, so it will probably not restrict access;
(7) David Mantik requested to see them and did so on 20 November 2009 and verified that these transparencies show the same evidence that the dupe negative shows with even greater clarity;
(8) frames 456 and 466, which are only seen clearly when viewed on the HD or 6K scans, as explained on pages 1359-1360 of Doug's book, show a wound behind the right ear but no large frontal wound;
(9) it is the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames--along with Jackie's testimony, for example--that decisively proves that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314-337 is a fabrication;
(10) it follows that any film frame that shows a major blow-out in the right-front or right side of the skull is an altered frame, where frames 456 and 466 establish their fabrication; and,
(11) as I have previously observed, the blow-out to the back of the head is clearly visible in frame 374, which I include in my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/.
There is an old saying in the law that an attorney should never ask a question to which he does not already know the answer. I would have though you would know better by now. In your zeal to attack me and Jack, however, you have gone several steps too far and invited your own refutation.
Professor,Just to keep the record really clear. Here is my post that you declined earlier to deal with. Only this time every word that comes from Doug Horne's book, Volume IV, page 1362 is underlined!
Where can you see the best copies of the Zapruder frames?
I will let Fetzer fulminate and bloviate to his heart’s content. Meanwhile, I’d like to return to a discussion of evidence.
Doug Horne has told us that a group of Hollywood film restoration experts have obtained copies of the Zapruder film from NARA and have scanned individual frames at high resolution. According to Horne, this will permit them to look at the back of JFK’s head in the frames subsequent to Z 313 to determine if there has been any alteration of the frame. They will produce a report soon.
It seems to me important to ask whether these film restoration experts in Hollywood will be looking at the best copies available of Zapruder frames. Last August, David Mantik emailed Gary Mack at the Sixth Floor Museum and asked him if he knew the whereabouts of the large format 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome transparencies of the extant Zapruder film commissioned by MPI in 1997 for its video Image of an Assassination. Gary Mack replied by email that the Ektachrome transparencies were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum and were available for viewing if a request was made through proper channels on the museum’s website. This was very important news. Whereas the dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were ever declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than the dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove whether or not the Hollywood team had digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way.
Hence, the best copies to view to determine whether there has been any alteration of frames are the 4" by 5" Ektachrome transparencies in the custody of the 6th Floor Museum.
Josiah Thompson
Hence, it would appear that the best copies for determining alteration are at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. According to Horne, they are available for study. Would you care to hazard a guess, Professor, why Horne has not done the obvious thing... gone to Dallas to have a look at the best copies? Why this detour to Hollywood? It doesn't make much sense to me but maybe you can explain it.
Josiah Thompson
Good post, Bill. For some reason, Tink & Jerry seem to have overlooked that Jack had already corrected me last night, so I assume they know that I have already been set right. I regard the advice I have received from experts like Jack, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton, Noel Twyman, and others unnamed as one of the great strengths of the research group that I organized back in late 1992, which of course included Bob Livingston, who was wonderful!Now that they have gotten their jollies, when will this new brain trust acknowledge the massive evidence that proves the film is a fake? They know about Mary and Jean in the street, the blow-out to the right front in the film as opposed to the blow-out to the left-rear observed by witnesses and substantiated by the medical evidence, Officer Chaney motoring forward, and of course the new evidence from studying a 6k version of the forensic copy from the National Archives.
So when are Tink & Jerry going to concede that the observations of this copy by prominent members of the Hollywood film community, which verified that the massive blow-out to the back had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in--just as Roderick Ryan had point out to Noel Twyman over a decade ago--is the final nail in the coffin of the film's authenticity? Or will they dismiss this, too, on the basis of generations of nonsense? When?
The jig is up, guys. While Moorman-in-the-street may be difficult for some to follow, Chaney motoring forward is not; and while the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film requires understanding the medical evidence, the observations by the Hollywood experts does not. Everyone can even confirm the deception for themselves by viewing the blow-out at the back of his head in frame 374! So when are these two going to stop playing games and finally come clean?
Jerry,The Key Word here is "Forensic copy."
Forensic has two meanings.
One meaning is the term used to debate, like school forensic teams.
The other definition of forensic is the ability to use in a court of law.
Not everything can be introduced into court as evidence.
Since the autopsy was not a forensic autopsy - that is to produce evidence that can be introduced into a court of law, none of the autopsy material is valid.
The autopsy done on JFK was done to determine the cause of death - gunshot wound to the head, murder.
The autopsy that still must be performed is a proper forensic autopsy, that will produce evidence that can be used in a court of law, a grand jury and then trial of someone indicted for a crime related to the assassination.
A forensic photo or film - would be one that could be introduced into a court of law, if necessary, and this can still happen, especially in regards to the Zapruder film.
Joe Backes wants Justice for JFK, well that can only happen if the case goes to a grand jury and then a trial.
The Z-film could go to court if someone, as Gary Mack puts says, "Steals it" and uses it without the permssion of the copyright owner - the Sixth Floor, and they sue.
Maybe someone should, as in the film "National Treasure," try to steal it and provoke a court case that will resolve many issues, especially those regarding the provenance and chain of custody issues.
BK
-
Glad to oblige! It is important that the nonsense you and Jerry Logan are peddling be corrected "for the record", as you say. I've discussed this matter with Doug Horne in the meanwhile and therefore have great confidence in making the following important points, which I shall number:
(1) As Doug explains in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), pages 1218-1219 and 1353, the dupe negative that is being studied is a fifth generation product, as you and Jerry have emphasized; however,
(2) the same artifacts noted by the Hollywood research group on the fifth generation dupe negative are also present on the MPI color positive transparencies held by the Sixth Floor Museum;
(3) those were made in 1997 at the Archives when the LMH Company hired MPI to photograph each frame of the film so that the Zapruders could sell their video product, "Image of An Assassination";
(4) not even Tink & Jerry can successfully question the evidence of alteration present on the dupe negative, since the artifacts of alteration are also present on the MPI transparencies, which are a first generation product;
(5) it is ironic that these transparencies are the ultimate guarantor of the fidelity of the fifth generation dupe negative, because they are in the custody of the Museum that is Gary Mack's employer;
(6) if the Museum were to suddenly stop allowing people to see them, then it--and Curator Gary Mack--would become even more blatantly a part of the cover-up, so it will probably not restrict access;
(7) David Mantik requested to see them and did so on 20 November 2009 and verified that these transparencies show the same evidence that the dupe negative shows with even greater clarity;
(8) frames 456 and 466, which are only seen clearly when viewed on the HD or 6K scans, as explained on pages 1359-1360 of Doug's book, show a wound behind the right ear but no large frontal wound;
(9) it is the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames--along with Jackie's testimony, for example--that decisively proves that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314-337 is a fabrication;
(10) it follows that any film frame that shows a major blow-out in the right-front or right side of the skull is an altered frame, where frames 456 and 466 establish their fabrication; and,
(11) as I have previously observed, the blow-out to the back of the head is clearly visible in frame 374, which I include in my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/.
There is an old saying in the law that an attorney should never ask a question to which he does not already know the answer. I would have though you would know better by now. In your zeal to attack me and Jack, however, you have gone several steps too far and invited your own refutation.
Professor,Just to keep the record really clear. Here is my post that you declined earlier to deal with. Only this time every word that comes from Doug Horne's book, Volume IV, page 1362 is underlined!
Where can you see the best copies of the Zapruder frames?
I will let Fetzer fulminate and bloviate to his heart’s content. Meanwhile, I’d like to return to a discussion of evidence.
Doug Horne has told us that a group of Hollywood film restoration experts have obtained copies of the Zapruder film from NARA and have scanned individual frames at high resolution. According to Horne, this will permit them to look at the back of JFK’s head in the frames subsequent to Z 313 to determine if there has been any alteration of the frame. They will produce a report soon.
It seems to me important to ask whether these film restoration experts in Hollywood will be looking at the best copies available of Zapruder frames. Last August, David Mantik emailed Gary Mack at the Sixth Floor Museum and asked him if he knew the whereabouts of the large format 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome transparencies of the extant Zapruder film commissioned by MPI in 1997 for its video Image of an Assassination. Gary Mack replied by email that the Ektachrome transparencies were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum and were available for viewing if a request was made through proper channels on the museum’s website. This was very important news. Whereas the dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were ever declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than the dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove whether or not the Hollywood team had digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way.
Hence, the best copies to view to determine whether there has been any alteration of frames are the 4" by 5" Ektachrome transparencies in the custody of the 6th Floor Museum.
Josiah Thompson
Hence, it would appear that the best copies for determining alteration are at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. According to Horne, they are available for study. Would you care to hazard a guess, Professor, why Horne has not done the obvious thing... gone to Dallas to have a look at the best copies? Why this detour to Hollywood? It doesn't make much sense to me but maybe you can explain it.
Josiah Thompson
Good post, Bill. For some reason, Tink & Jerry seem to have overlooked that Jack had already corrected me last night, so I assume they know that I have already been set right. I regard the advice I have received from experts like Jack, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton, Noel Twyman, and others unnamed as one of the great strengths of the research group that I organized back in late 1992, which of course included Bob Livingston, who was wonderful!Now that they have gotten their jollies, when will this new brain trust acknowledge the massive evidence that proves the film is a fake? They know about Mary and Jean in the street, the blow-out to the right front in the film as opposed to the blow-out to the left-rear observed by witnesses and substantiated by the medical evidence, Officer Chaney motoring forward, and of course the new evidence from studying a 6k version of the forensic copy from the National Archives.
So when are Tink & Jerry going to concede that the observations of this copy by prominent members of the Hollywood film community, which verified that the massive blow-out to the back had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in--just as Roderick Ryan had point out to Noel Twyman over a decade ago--is the final nail in the coffin of the film's authenticity? Or will they dismiss this, too, on the basis of generations of nonsense? When?
The jig is up, guys. While Moorman-in-the-street may be difficult for some to follow, Chaney motoring forward is not; and while the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film requires understanding the medical evidence, the observations by the Hollywood experts does not. Everyone can even confirm the deception for themselves by viewing the blow-out at the back of his head in frame 374! So when are these two going to stop playing games and finally come clean?
Jerry,The Key Word here is "Forensic copy."
Forensic has two meanings.
One meaning is the term used to debate, like school forensic teams.
The other definition of forensic is the ability to use in a court of law.
Not everything can be introduced into court as evidence.
Since the autopsy was not a forensic autopsy - that is to produce evidence that can be introduced into a court of law, none of the autopsy material is valid.
The autopsy done on JFK was done to determine the cause of death - gunshot wound to the head, murder.
The autopsy that still must be performed is a proper forensic autopsy, that will produce evidence that can be used in a court of law, a grand jury and then trial of someone indicted for a crime related to the assassination.
A forensic photo or film - would be one that could be introduced into a court of law, if necessary, and this can still happen, especially in regards to the Zapruder film.
Joe Backes wants Justice for JFK, well that can only happen if the case goes to a grand jury and then a trial.
The Z-film could go to court if someone, as Gary Mack puts says, "Steals it" and uses it without the permssion of the copyright owner - the Sixth Floor, and they sue.
Maybe someone should, as in the film "National Treasure," try to steal it and provoke a court case that will resolve many issues, especially those regarding the provenance and chain of custody issues.
BK
I suggest that discussion of FILM GENERATIONS cease. Obviously many otherwise informed laymen (non-photographic professionals)
have perpetuated MISCONCEPTIONS by inaccurate labeling of generations as if they knew what they were talking about, and
as if it were a matter of great significance.
Most laymen do not understand COLOR REVERSAL FILM. It requires NO NEGATIVE, and therefore requires only ONE GENERATION,
not two. Also, most laymen do not understand that SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS are not necessarily degraded, but instead can
actually be superior. As I was reading HORNE IV I noted that frequent mention was made of bracketing exposure times and filter packs
in the duplicating of the Z film. These are methods of IMPROVING the subsequent copies.
It is counter productive to keep discussing FILM GENERATIONS when nobody seems to know what they are talking about, even
going back into records of documents in years past when misinformation was recorded.
I suggest that Healy and Lamson confirm what I am saying. At least both of them know photography.
Jack
well, someone on the other side is fishin'.... essentially Jack, you're correct when aerial/optical film printing techniques are employed, process camera film type is critical to the equation also. However, in general, contact printing, which is another form of duplicating a film (copying) may create a certain level of image softness and is apparent).
IMHO debating film generations is best saved for a formal investigation (if it ever gets there). Regarding any further discussion concerning "Zapruder film and generation issue", would necessitate extant Z-film authentication and said films' provenance. I seriously doubt the defenders of the Dealey Plaza film/photo record are ready to go there.
Although I haven't read earlier postings in this particluar thread, I suspect there's whole lot of the faithful doing the regular lone nut-SBT shuffle about now....
-
Do you really expect anyone to believe that that the Zapruder film should show such things as “(i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative” and “ (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her”?
Am I reading this correctly?
Are you serious?
(and BTW, once again while attempting to quote the entire thread in my reply I was told that “You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text”)
Exactly my reaction, Todd. LOL. Of the what, 26 second film, Moorman and Hill are on camera for what ... 2 seconds or so?
I can't believe he's seriously dragging all these reams of pap from an old thread onto a new one either. Does he have an "off" button?
Bests,
Barb :-)
perhaps Barb while you and 'thee' Todd are slogging around attempting to defend a subject you've displayed, and appear to have no expertise in (black art of film compositing)-- you might consider this: when will you take the time to read and write a review concerning case medical evidence discussed in the Doug Horne volumes? I for one am waiting to hear, and see, the latest lone nut dance... Case related medical evidence, that is/was your bag wasn't it?
Think HBO/Hanks & Co's are reconsidering their options these day's?
-
You keep making things up.
I didn't have "unlimited access" to "clear copies" of the Zapruder film. The 4" by 5" transparencies never left the offices of LIFE magazine. I was in Philadelphia. LIFE was in New York. I never spent "hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it." My total time studying these transparencies was probably something like four or five hours, all this in November and December 1966. I was told the transparencies were made from the camera original film and not a copy.
Are you making all this up to try to portray me as "suspect" in some way? Fetzer does that quite a bit. Why? Is this really just because we intruded into your turf on the windshield and put out information you were not aware of concerning two witnesses? I would have thought you would have been happy about what Barb Junkarrinen, Jerry Logan and I put together since it made your own position stronger.
Josiah Thompson
When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.
With all due respect here Tink I think you're missing the point.
Pamela's next line is "I saw Josiah Thompson speaking with the devil."
Best to you,
Jerry
HAHA! That's pretty much it, Jerry ... and due to some past conflicts with her beliefs running contrary to documentation, and it being pointed out to her in discussions elsewhere, as well as my research into some of Judyth Baker's claims that did not make Pamela happy because none of it turned out well for Judyth, it may be that she has decided that I AM that devil.<g>
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb, please stay focused on the thread topic, is that a real challenge for you and Jer these day's?
-
...
then someone will be able to go to the original and see if the matte's there in the original as well as the copy. So, at least in principle, there's a way to settle the argument.
Best to you,
Jerry
a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**
And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent
-
Very well put, jack.
Those who are opeating under the old paradigm are still looking for "hidden shooters on the knoll." But I am positive that this assassination was filmed, the same way a football team films its own play, and so we're looking for hidden cameras, and other paraphernalia and related techniques to understand not only how the shooting occurred, but how the subsequent "imagery" of this event was controlled.
DSL
David...here is my theory. The best way to hide something is IN PLAIN SIGHT, AS IF IT BELONGS THERE.
If on 11-22 there was on the pedestal a tripod with a movie camera, nobody would give it a second thought.
It was manned by a professional cameraman with 16mm camera/film. About 5 or10 minutes before the motorcade
reached the plaza, he shot A PRELIMINARY GUIDE FILM TO ASSIST ANIMATORS.
When the motorcade reached Houston Street, the cameraman shot TAKE 2, CAPTURING THE ENTIRE MOTORCADE
FROM ELM TO HOUSTON, including the limo and occupants.
When the FAKED FINAL FILM WAS FABRICATED, it was an amalgam of the GUIDE FILM and the TAKE 2 FILM.
Using aerial imaging, the two films were interchangeable as far as REGISTRATION AND PERSPECTIVE were
concerned. This accounts for certain anomalies in the extant film such as the MOTIONLESS SPECTATORS ON
THE NORTH CURB, WHICH WERE TAKEN FROM THE GUIDE FILM.
All of the above is very logical if you look at various anomalies and figure which film they came from...TAKE 1
OR TAKE 2.
Then, later by prearranged plan, Abe makes public that he shot the film...and you know the story from there.
The FBI rounds up all other movies and photos, and paints out the camera and tripod, replacing them with
Zapruder and Sitzman.
Jack
"I say Holmes, you may just have solved that part of the case". Very interesting idea, Jack. Only problem is we haven't found the cameraman, unless it was Zapruder himself, or a hidden other very nearby. It would have to be someone at about the same angle as Z and S.
I find this an amazingly interesting thread and I know there are high passions on the various sides; just a personal request, more light and less heat [attack the positions/ideas, not the person - whenever possible]. I also know it is not always possible when one suspects someone did or thought something for some motive one doesn't respect. But unless one is sure in one's own heart, give the other a little benefit of the doubt. The research community seems to like to stone and then eat their own dead. Viewed from the outside it has weakened us, IMO, although vetting of the information and the persons - even sometimes their motives are valid and necessary. Carry-on with the stoning and eating of the dead - tastefully.
same here, Peter..... though I disagree in one area, the research community doesn't eat its own, its dying of starvation. There's damn few researchers left despite what folks call themselves... 90% is simply protecting turf...
When one talks about hiding in plain sight, one needs to understand one of these:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Nice-Bell-Howell-Sport...=item4cece369ad
fits right in the palm of your hand... Bell & Howell no less, double 8mm, around since the 20's. Problem with some researchers of yore, their imaginations aren't as quick... Could that be by design? notice the film speeds...
David, Only problem with that camera is this would [as per Jack's interesting scenario] NEED a tripod that was not moved. We need to find someone with a tripod in line with Zappy, or consider that Zappy made both.
As to 'research' dying of starvation....yes and no....the numbers are down...the public interest IMO is down...but what has been coming out by the few still extant of late has been nothing less than monumental! I think the CTs have won and we can declare victory...but sadly no one is watching to acknowledge this in the MSM or general public.
Tripod? Nah... tripod footage would not smoothly inter-cut with Zapruder's handheld offering... Now Zapruder doing both? Now where have I heard THAT before?
However Peter, in my estimation that is probably the most likely scenario... -
Very well put, jack.
Those who are opeating under the old paradigm are still looking for "hidden shooters on the knoll." But I am positive that this assassination was filmed, the same way a football team films its own play, and so we're looking for hidden cameras, and other paraphernalia and related techniques to understand not only how the shooting occurred, but how the subsequent "imagery" of this event was controlled.
DSL
David...here is my theory. The best way to hide something is IN PLAIN SIGHT, AS IF IT BELONGS THERE.
If on 11-22 there was on the pedestal a tripod with a movie camera, nobody would give it a second thought.
It was manned by a professional cameraman with 16mm camera/film. About 5 or10 minutes before the motorcade
reached the plaza, he shot A PRELIMINARY GUIDE FILM TO ASSIST ANIMATORS.
When the motorcade reached Houston Street, the cameraman shot TAKE 2, CAPTURING THE ENTIRE MOTORCADE
FROM ELM TO HOUSTON, including the limo and occupants.
When the FAKED FINAL FILM WAS FABRICATED, it was an amalgam of the GUIDE FILM and the TAKE 2 FILM.
Using aerial imaging, the two films were interchangeable as far as REGISTRATION AND PERSPECTIVE were
concerned. This accounts for certain anomalies in the extant film such as the MOTIONLESS SPECTATORS ON
THE NORTH CURB, WHICH WERE TAKEN FROM THE GUIDE FILM.
All of the above is very logical if you look at various anomalies and figure which film they came from...TAKE 1
OR TAKE 2.
Then, later by prearranged plan, Abe makes public that he shot the film...and you know the story from there.
The FBI rounds up all other movies and photos, and paints out the camera and tripod, replacing them with
Zapruder and Sitzman.
Jack
"I say Holmes, you may just have solved that part of the case". Very interesting idea, Jack. Only problem is we haven't found the cameraman, unless it was Zapruder himself, or a hidden other very nearby. It would have to be someone at about the same angle as Z and S.
I find this an amazingly interesting thread and I know there are high passions on the various sides; just a personal request, more light and less heat [attack the positions/ideas, not the person - whenever possible]. I also know it is not always possible when one suspects someone did or thought something for some motive one doesn't respect. But unless one is sure in one's own heart, give the other a little benefit of the doubt. The research community seems to like to stone and then eat their own dead. Viewed from the outside it has weakened us, IMO, although vetting of the information and the persons - even sometimes their motives are valid and necessary. Carry-on with the stoning and eating of the dead - tastefully.
same here, Peter..... though I disagree in one area, the research community doesn't eat its own, its dying of starvation. There's damn few researchers left despite what folks call themselves... 90% is simply protecting turf...
When one talks about hiding in plain sight, one needs to understand one of these:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Nice-Bell-Howell-Sport...=item4cece369ad
fits right in the palm of your hand... Bell & Howell no less, double 8mm, around since the 20's. Problem with some researchers of yore, their imaginations aren't as quick... Could that be by design? notice the film speeds...
-
BILL''And I don't accept your conclusion that we'll never know, as we are learning more every day, and it's getting exciting, isn't it?''
BILL ANY THOUGHTS..I HAVE BEEN READING WITHIN SOME POSTS OF LATE THIS WE'LL NEVER KNOW CLAP TRAP IMO...IS THIS TO BE OR IS THIS THE NEWEST PLOY LINE...IMO THAT IS CRAP AS YOU SAY ''I think we are closer now than ever before. '' SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A NEW EXCUSE BEING FORMULATED WHICH WILL be ADDed TO AS IT CONTINUES I HAVE NO DOUBT...BY THOSE WHO BASICALLY DO NOT BELIEVE THE ZAPPY IS ALTERED...AND IN THE PAST HAVE LET THAT BE KNOWN..I ALSO SEE ONE IN PARTICULAR CLIMBING ON THE BAND WAGON SUDDENLY TRYING TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF EITHER BEING A CONVERT , OR SUGGESTING THEY ALWAyS PERHAPS kNEW THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITHIN...WHY ??SO THAT WHICHEVER WAY THE RESULT FALLS WILL BE THEY THINK ON SAFE GROUND WITHIN THE ALTS FORUMS AND OTHERS...HMMM ONE NEVER KNOWS, IT CERTAINLY IS GETTING INTERESTING...IMO...
B, EXCUSE CAPITOLS THANKS...MUCH..Bernice and Bill,
With all respect, that's not what I wrote.
"In fact, if I were going to make an assumption, it would be that the original A roll, the family pictures, never left Dallas for Life or anywhere else. Why would Zapruder want to give them up and why would Life want them. As I wrote, that's assumption and speculation, we'll never know unless more information comes to light. "
In short, we'll never know if Zapruder's family film left Dallas, unless we gather more information. I don't see how that's a ploy or clap-trap. I made it clear I was offering some speculation and suggesting that I could never be proven right unless we had more information. If that's part of the evil plan Bernice it's really, really subtle and I assure you, well beyond me.
Bill, I'm with you. I've never been impressed with the "image anomalies", but some of Horne's information is new and exciting and I really want to know where it leads. That said, I think it's important to separate out the new facts from assumptions and speculation so we can determine what evidence is needed to really establish something interesting. It's definitely not my conclusion that we'll never know - but I do think there's more work to be done.
Jerry
As with B., I'm tired of hearing "we'll never know," which used to come from the LN camp, but now comes from the CTs who have an agenda to advocate and are falling behind in the polls.
I hear Jerry saying that we need more info, though James Douglas, in his Black Op Radio interview, said we don't need more information to know why JFK was killed, and I agree with Jerry, in that we really do need more information, not to convince ourselves, but to force the system to work.
As for knowing more about the Zapruder film, I think that is forthcoming, as I learn something new about it every day, and there's still a lot of outstanding questions that seem like they can be answered.
Like which one of the Z-films went to NPIC for each of the briefing board sessions that we know about, and who was briefed by the analysis done with the McMahon briefing boards?
And did the Z-film take a detour to Rochester and "Hawkeye Works" and if so, why?
And I like the way you put it, "...unless more information comes to light."
Indeed, we must shine a light in there and if there weren't any shennigans then there shouldn't be any trouble locating the appropriate records and more eyewitnesses, and throw a spotlight on all the whole thing so we can really see what happened, not only at DP but at the other crime scenes as well.
BK
here's where the light has to go: the medical evidence! Debating the Zapruder film is a lost cause, a cause the preservers of Dealey Plaza want to debate, endlessly..... until NARA housed Zapruder film authenticity is on the books, there'll never be an end to Z-film alteration nonsense.
BTW, where is Roland Zavada's rewrite of his original report? Has it ever been made public? Did he ever finish it?
-
Bill,
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't trying to hijack your thread! I just wanted to be sure everyone was clear about what kind of copy the Hollywood group viewed. It's important because the first line of response to the group's findings is going to be that everything looks faked on a fifth generation copy. Horne makes the strongest case for the technical expertise of Sydney and the others, but Zavada has examined the actual film with a densitometer and microscope. So the first thing we're going to hear is that it's not surprising to learn that someone looked at a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy and determined that it was a copy.
Best to you,
Jerry
Jerry,
Now how did Roland Zavada get that Zapruder film under a microscope? Was the 35mm a 2nd-3rd generation film on which he did his measurements ? Given the current Z-film alteration debate it could of been a 4-6 generations from the original. All sorts of possibilities. Now can you prove the provenance of the film Zavada inspected, measured, slid under a microscope? I doubt you can Jer!
And, 8mm Z-film gamma issues is a dead horse argument... Further, lets nail down the date and place when the measuring feats were performed? Who was present? And, your copy double talk is duly noted Jer.... Gawd I love lawyers, even retired ones whom can't prove the extant film currently housed at NARA is in FACT the original in-camera Zapruder film, shot on Nov 22nd 1963....
..."In Chapter 14 of IARRB Volume IV, Doug Horne does get into the micro analysis of anomalies, describing each one in detail, and adding a new one to the mix – the edge of the Stemmons Freeway sign, which was recently uncovered by Sydney Wilkerson, who works on Hollywood movies. Sydney bought some first generation large 35 mm stills of the Z-film from the NARA and with a team of professional Hollywood special effects producers, has examined the film closely. They are preparing a yet to be released report on their study which could include positive scientific proof of tampering, or at the very least will show how the film could have been tampered with, - eliminating the brief stop that over 50 witnesses claim they saw, fudging up JFK's head wound to indicate a large frontal exit wound, and eliminating the blowout of the back of the head."...Just to keep things technically accurate ... It is impossible to purchase first generation copies of the Zapruder film or frames of the Zapruder film from the NARA. The NARA does not drag out the original every time someone requests a copy. The NARA made archival prints of the Zapruder film and all copies are generated from the archival prints. Therefore, under the very best circumstances, Sydney is examining a copy of a copy and may well be examining a copy of a copy of a copy.
Best to you,
Jerry
Hey Jerry, Good to hear from you.
While I'd like to keep this thread focused on the film's chain of custody and not the conent or anamolies, certainly making a 35 mm copy of the original from the NARA qualifies as a chain of custody issue. While I might have misstated what I thought happened, here's what Doug Horne says, with the approrpriate sentences hightlighted:
Addendum: The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood
It is misleading to claim that scientific advances and scholarly experiments can causeall photo fakes to be unmasked. Questions about authenticity remain. Many photosthat once were considered genuine have recently been determined to be faked.
—Dino Brugioni of NPIC, the authorof Photofakery: The History andTechniques of Photographic Deceptionand Manipulation (1999).
Synchronicity sometimes plays an important role in human affairs; things occasionally come together in such a way, and with such timing, that the circumstances could not be more fortuitous, or more beneficial. Some would call it fate; others would call it luck; and I prefer to call it synchronicity, which falls somewhere in-between fate (or destiny) and pure luck. Consider the events described below, and you will see what I mean.
At precisely the time when I was 99% finished with my Zapruder film chapter, and thought there was nothing remaining to do but a bit of word smithing and fact checking, Good Fortune descended upon me in a way that was almost too good to be true; and yet, if not for my earlier involvement with Zapruder film issues while a member of the ARRB staff, none of this would have happened to me, and someone else would be writing about these experiences today.
On June 2, 2009 I was notified by researcher and author Dick Russell (author of The Man Who Knew Too Much and On the Trail of the JFK Assassins) that Jim Marrs (author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy) was trying to contact me on behalf of a personal friend of his who was involved in a Zapruder film research effort. I subsequently found out through both Dick Russell and Jim Marrs that researcher Ed Sherry in Florida (Meeting Coordinator for the South Florida Research Group) had put out an “all points bulletin” for me in his blog on behalf of Jim Marrs’ friend in the Los Angeles greater metropolitan area. Because I am a semi-recluse, and was also industriously trying to finish my manuscript, normally I would not have been interested, but there were two reasons why this occasion was different: (1) Jim Marrs personally vouched for the character of the person seeking me out, and (2) she was conducting Zapruder film research. Having been deeply immersed in Zapruder film issues for the preceding three months, I was amazed at how fortuitous the timing was. I decided to contact Jim Marrs’ friend in Los Angeles at the e-mail address he provided to me.
On June 3, 2009 I exchanged introductory e-mails with one Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood—specifically, in the marketing of postproduction services within the motion picture film industry. She has decades of experience under her belt in dealing with editors, experts in film restoration, and film studio executives. She lives and breathes the professional culture of the motion picture film industry, and has working relationships with many of the major players involved in post-production in Hollywood. When she first introduced herself to me she insisted that she was neither a researcher, author, nor a historian; and in spite of her
1353
continued self-deprecation, I have explained to her on numerous occasions since that day that she is now indeed a JFK assassination researcher, by simple virtue of what she is doing, whether she ever publishes a word or not! We are what we do, and what Sydney Wilkinson has done is truly extraordinary.
Sydney revealed to me in short order that she had purchased a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives. She did so purely for research purposes, to satisfy her own curiosity about whether or not the extant film in the Archives was the authentic out-of-camera original, or whether it was an altered film masquerading as the original. She had already purchased a copy of the Zavada report from the National Archives and knew its contents backwards and forwards, and was also familiar with the interviews of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC conducted by the ARRB staff in 1997. She was aware of my former role as the ARRB’s liaison with Kodak and Rollie Zavada, and was also very familiar with the existing literature about the film’s possible alteration. In short, she was simply a very curious American citizen who, out of both natural curiosity and a sense of patriotism, wanted to know the truth about this famous film.
She had literally “put her money where her mouth was” by forking out $ 795.90 for a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from a source whose honesty and integrity could not be challenged by any future researchers: the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print. She wanted a dupe negative because her intent from the beginning was to subject the Zapruder film to the serious, professional scrutiny of Hollywood film professionals in an attempt to resolve the ongoing debate about its authenticity. Sydney’s attitude going into this effort was similar to my own attitude about the Zapruder film when I began working for the ARRB in 1995; she was very curious about the issues that had been raised about the Zapruder film’s authenticity, and simply wanted to know the answer, one way or the other.
I was stunned by the simplicity and power of the concept behind her ongoing research effort: only Hollywood visual effects technicians or other film professionals familiar with the optical effects techniques of the 1960s would be truly qualified to say whether or not there was evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film’s image content! While Rollie Zavada was a film chemist and a Kodak project manager (and was eminently qualified to study film density and edge print), he had no practical experience with the creation of motion picture visual effects, and I therefore viewed him as unqualified to make a final determination as to whether or not the Zapruder film was an altered film. (The ARRB’s senior management understood this also, which was why he was not asked to comment upon the film’s image content in his limited authenticity study.) I immediately wondered:
Why hadn’t anyone ever attempted this before? If anyone had attempted it before 2003 (the year that Monaco in San Francisco made the Forensic Copy of the extant film for NARA), the only tool available for study in Hollywood would have been a multi-generation bootleg copy of one of the Moses Weitzman blowups (from 8 mm to 35 mm) made circa 1968; because the provenance of the bootleg copy would have been suspect, so would any results obtained from such a study. If anyone had attempted this subsequent to 2003, neither Sydney nor I was aware of such an effort. Intuitively, I felt that this was a “first.” A big first......
-
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
Dean,
What kind of film was the FBI using?
Todd
Todd, Dean, et al:
I first saw the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore reenactment films, shot with each of the three individuals original camera's, in March of 1999 during a research trip to NARA II. The films are actually a part of the massive FBI Bulky file 62-109060, in this instance serial # 4199. This is a very large serial subsection of the 62-109060 file and the films in question are actually in box number 102A, Folder # 4. Also included with this material are notes made on strips of paper, approximately 9" long by 3" wide, notes written by Lyndal Shaneyfelt that are affixed to the various film boxes that contain the small 8mm plastic spools of exposed film. To answer one of your questions posed to Dean, Todd; the film used by the FBI in the May 24, 1964 Zapruder camera reenactment is Kodachrome Movie Film with a small label bearing the # 9 affixed to the back of the familiar and traditional yellow, black and red Kodak company box.
The surviving Shaneyfelt constructed notes that are a part of this folder are also interesting and do help to provide a few further details. On May 23, 1964, the day prior to the actual reconstruction event, a roll of Kodak Kodachrome 8mm film was exposed in both the Nix and Muchmore cameras "on site in Dallas 5/23/64 during preliminary tests before reenactment on 5/24/64." This film was, in turn, taken by Lyndal Shaneyfelt.(62-109060-4193, Box 102A, Folder 4; film box containing reel labeled "15") On the day of the reconstruction, May 24, 1964, the Nix camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site 5/24/64 by SA R. E. Triplett" with a further Shaneyfelt notation that there was "no 2nd run." On the same date the Muchmore camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site by SA C. Ray Hall 5/24/64" with the same further Shaneyfelt notation as that which accompanies the surviving Nix film reconstruction notes - "no 2nd run." These two films are labeled, in turn, "16A reenactment thru Nix" and "17A reenactment thru Muchmore". The Zapruder reenactment film, item # 9, is listed as "Exposed in Zapruder camera on site in Dallas 5/24/64 by SA L. H. Shaneyfelt, with stills and moving." And unlike the Nix and Muchmore exposures, Shaneyfelt actually did "2 runs" of the assassination reenactment through the Zapruder film, one it would appear with the "zoom" feature on the Zapruder camera activated; the other without, though I could be wrong about this. I made photocopies of all of these notes, as well as photocopies of the actual film reels and their accompanying Kodak boxes, during my 1999 visit to NARA II. I also acquired, that same year, a copy of the reenactment films and it is identical to the YouTube copy link provided by Dean. (Not being a film expert, I am at a loss to explain the "cool" blue tint that appears to be self-evident on the film when one watches it; one could assume that this jhad something to do with the original development, but that would only be an assumption on my part).
FWIW, and in closing, in actuality the WC staff controlled reconstruction was originally set to take place on the previous weekend, May 17, 1964, but was delayed one week. Part of this delay was caused by an assumption on the part of WC Chief Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, that the FBI still possessed the camera of Abraham Zapruder. This was not the case, the camera by this time (May of 1964) now in the hands of the Bell and Howell people, stored in their archives room at the head office of Bell and Howell in Chicago, Illinois. The FBI did pick the camera up on May 12, 1964, used it in Dallas over the weekend of May 23, 1964, and returned it to Bell and Howell, Chicago, via SA Dennis Shanahan, on June 23, 1964. And again, FWIW, during the week of November 28, 1966 (yes, 1966) the Bell and Howell company had the camera removed from the archives storage facility and taken to their engineering lab in Lincolnwood, Illinois, where the camera was tested by their staff at which time the average film speed - fps - was found to be 18.2 fps, or within 1/10th of a second of the FBI results of 1963-1964. Lawrence Howe, then Vice President and Secretary of Bell and Howell, did admit that this testing was conducted directly "because of many news stories published from time to time espousing various new theories concerning the Dallas tragedy..."
Gary Murr
Hey Gary.... nice to see your name and postings here again..... quick question: did you see/witness the Zapruder reenactment film laced up in a projector and run? The actual film wound on a spool? Video tape dub of same? Or simply frames from all three films?
Thanks,
David Healy
-
As I think we've both discussed, David, the first time the Zapruder film was ever shown on any network was in 1975 on the Geraldo Rivera, program... Groden's copy. At least that's all I know.
My point here is certainly not that any network bought the film on November 23rd and 24th, but rather that from Saturday morning on Zapruder wanted to sell film rights and had a copy at his disposal to accomplish such a sale. No hypothetical conspirator planning to alter the film could know on Saturday or Sunday that Zapruder's copy of the film might end up in the hands of a network by Monday evening. This would be kind of a chilling thought to which an intelligent mastermind would respond, "Okay seize it! Both the LIFE original and the copy still in Zapruder's possession."
Would you agree or disagree? I'm interested in your take on this. I think this is an angle on all this that hasn't been discussed before. If we presume any altering is done by a high-level government conpiracy, why not seize it?
Josiah Thompson
Dr. Thompson,
Why seize it? Why indeed, especially if "friends or sympathizers" have control over the camera original and the 3 optical film prints... btw, who said it was a government conspiracy? Cover-up? Now that is another story... I'll have more to follow later...
DHealy
...that LIFE magazine would part with the camera original on the basis of a request to borrow it for awhile... it just doesn’t pass the smell test. And the remaining copy in Zapruder’s hands, the copy that he is retaining in hopes of selling it as a film to some network, what about it? Once a network buys it and broadcasts it, the genie has flown....
Josiah Thompson
Dr. Thompson,
question, to the best of your recollection has there ever been an air-check film or dub made of any live broadcast showing the Zapruder film broadcast on ANY carrier service (independent, network affiliate or indeed one of the big three tv networks)? If so, made by whom, what circumstances, the air date and time when(s) and where the telecast originated.... please?
David Healy
-
...that LIFE magazine would part with the camera original on the basis of a request to borrow it for awhile... it just doesn’t pass the smell test. And the remaining copy in Zapruder’s hands, the copy that he is retaining in hopes of selling it as a film to some network, what about it? Once a network buys it and broadcasts it, the genie has flown.
...
Josiah Thompson
Dr. Thompson,
question, to the best of your recollection has there ever been an air-check film or dub made of any live broadcast showing the Zapruder film broadcast on ANY carrier service (independent, network affiliate or indeed one of the big three tv networks)? If so, made by whom, what circumstances, the air date and time when(s) and where the telecast originated.... please?
David Healy
-
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
Dean,
What kind of film was the FBI using?
Todd
Todd, Dean, et al:
I first saw the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore reenactment films, shot with each of the three individuals original camera's, in March of 1999 during a research trip to NARA II. The films are actually a part of the massive FBI Bulky file 62-109060, in this instance serial # 4199. This is a very large serial subsection of the 62-109060 file and the films in question are actually in box number 102A, Folder # 4. Also included with this material are notes made on strips of paper, approximately 9" long by 3" wide, notes written by Lyndal Shaneyfelt that are affixed to the various film boxes that contain the small 8mm plastic spools of exposed film. To answer one of your questions posed to Dean, Todd; the film used by the FBI in the May 24, 1964 Zapruder camera reenactment is Kodachrome Movie Film with a small label bearing the # 9 affixed to the back of the familiar and traditional yellow, black and red Kodak company box.
The surviving Shaneyfelt constructed notes that are a part of this folder are also interesting and do help to provide a few further details. On May 23, 1964, the day prior to the actual reconstruction event, a roll of Kodak Kodachrome 8mm film was exposed in both the Nix and Muchmore cameras "on site in Dallas 5/23/64 during preliminary tests before reenactment on 5/24/64." This film was, in turn, taken by Lyndal Shaneyfelt.(62-109060-4193, Box 102A, Folder 4; film box containing reel labeled "15") On the day of the reconstruction, May 24, 1964, the Nix camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site 5/24/64 by SA R. E. Triplett" with a further Shaneyfelt notation that there was "no 2nd run." On the same date the Muchmore camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site by SA C. Ray Hall 5/24/64" with the same further Shaneyfelt notation as that which accompanies the surviving Nix film reconstruction notes - "no 2nd run." These two films are labeled, in turn, "16A reenactment thru Nix" and "17A reenactment thru Muchmore". The Zapruder reenactment film, item # 9, is listed as "Exposed in Zapruder camera on site in Dallas 5/24/64 by SA L. H. Shaneyfelt, with stills and moving." And unlike the Nix and Muchmore exposures, Shaneyfelt actually did "2 runs" of the assassination reenactment through the Zapruder film, one it would appear with the "zoom" feature on the Zapruder camera activated; the other without, though I could be wrong about this. I made photocopies of all of these notes, as well as photocopies of the actual film reels and their accompanying Kodak boxes, during my 1999 visit to NARA II. I also acquired, that same year, a copy of the reenactment films and it is identical to the YouTube copy link provided by Dean. (Not being a film expert, I am at a loss to explain the "cool" blue tint that appears to be self-evident on the film when one watches it; one could assume that this jhad something to do with the original development, but that would only be an assumption on my part).
FWIW, and in closing, in actuality the WC staff controlled reconstruction was originally set to take place on the previous weekend, May 17, 1964, but was delayed one week. Part of this delay was caused by an assumption on the part of WC Chief Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, that the FBI still possessed the camera of Abraham Zapruder. This was not the case, the camera by this time (May of 1964) now in the hands of the Bell and Howell people, stored in their archives room at the head office of Bell and Howell in Chicago, Illinois. The FBI did pick the camera up on May 12, 1964, used it in Dallas over the weekend of May 23, 1964, and returned it to Bell and Howell, Chicago, via SA Dennis Shanahan, on June 23, 1964. And again, FWIW, during the week of November 28, 1966 (yes, 1966) the Bell and Howell company had the camera removed from the archives storage facility and taken to their engineering lab in Lincolnwood, Illinois, where the camera was tested by their staff at which time the average film speed - fps - was found to be 18.2 fps, or within 1/10th of a second of the FBI results of 1963-1964. Lawrence Howe, then Vice President and Secretary of Bell and Howell, did admit that this testing was conducted directly "because of many news stories published from time to time espousing various new theories concerning the Dallas tragedy..."
Gary Murr
Gary
Amazing reply!
Thank you so much for all the info!
Would you be abel to scan and post Shaneyfelt's notes?
I would love to see those
Now we know the clip from Youtube are the films we are looking for, if we could get them and make a transfer with the sprocket area it would be a HUGE step in research of Full Flush Left and other items
Dean
no, it's not amazing Gary Murr is on his game...
so, let's see here:
11/22/63 in-camera DP-Zapruder film shot;
02/64 (late) WCR en-group viewed the Z-film;
05/64 Shaneyfelt and tribe shot re-enactment films..
when were the Z-frames numbered by Shaneyfelt again?
-
Question...why would they only ??""and we also took motion pictures with Mr. Zapruder's camera
from Zapruder's position with the car in the fixed locations as they
were established with the car just stationary in those locations."" anyone any idea...??
thanks b..
any thoughts ?? I take the above to mean and i could be in error that mr.zapruder's camera was used to take photos of as it states ''and we also took motion pictures with Mr. Zapruder's camera
from Zapruder's position with the car in the fixed locations as they
were established with the car just stationary in those locations."" anyone any idea...??
what fixed locations ,with the car just stationary , the limo supposedly never stopped...????? thanks b
The car was not shot in motion. Surveyors established the car locations based on Zapruder photos and
Shaneyfelt photographed the stationary cars at those locations. The WC even provides the surveyor
elevation figures based on the limo position as it turned from Houston onto Elm. Shaneyfelt used
a 4x5 Speed Graphic from the pedestal. If they took any photos using the Zapruder camera, the
films are not in any record.
Jack
Nonsense, Jack.
Did you even bother to READ Shaneyfelt's testimony?
LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "During the reenactment the black-and-white
photographs were made from Zapruder's position with a Speedgraphic
camera and we also took motion pictures with Mr. Zapruder's camera
from Zapruder's position with the car in the fixed locations as they
were established with the car just stationary in those locations.
After establishing all those points and making these film records of
it, we then had the car proceed along that Elm Street route at
approximately 11 miles per hour, and filmed it with Mr. Zapruder's
camera loaded with color film from Mr. Zapruder's position and
simultaneously photographed it with Mr. Nix's camera from Mr. Nix's
position, and Mrs. Muchmore's camera from Mrs. Muchmore's position,
and this was done twice."
The reconstruction film, which can be seen here...
...clearly shows that not only did they film the car stopped at fixed points as Shaeyfelt stated but that they also filmed the car in motion as Shaneyfelt stated.
Why would you claim otherwise?
where are the film slates (you know what those are? If not, tell'em Gary), Sherlock.... surely someone, ANYONE with a modicum of film knowledge KNOWS you slate: film type-speed and camera type, cameraman, date and time. How do we know these are Shaneyfelt films? Hell, he can't even tell us when he numbered the Z-frames, nor can you or the Pope of Dealey Plaza...
No cigar chum!
-
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
Dean,
What kind of film was the FBI using?
Todd
still posting from Wendy's eh, Todd? I expected better from you old chap -- this rates up there with you and .joihn shooting at overstuffed, non-moving sandbags at 50 yards then declaring: yep, old Oswald got off 3 shots under 8 seconds....
the question we should ALL be asking is why did the 6th Floor Museum deny Rollie Zavada use of Zapruder's B&H 414PD film camera for his ARRB tests? let's get serious, huh?
Ah, Turtle…I’ve kind of missed responding to your empty posts, devoid of facts or any type of thought or analysis about the case. Yep, I see you’re still posting much about nothing here, there, everywhere, Dave, using your pseudo-hipster style. Ah well, to each their own I guess.
Me and .John shooting at sandbags at 50 yards and then making grand declarations on LHO’s guilt? I see you still can’t get even the simplest of facts correct. Why is that I wonder?
The real question we should be asking, as it relates to this thread, is how can we get this film that was shot through Zapruders camera so that we can take a look at it. Will you be calling NARA II tomorrow?
that never happened sonny. If it did it's incumbent on you to deliver same, but then we know how DVP and his merry band trolls work... now why did the 6th floor not allow Rollie Zavada to use Abe Zapruder's Bell & Howell 414 PD double 8mm camera again... you seem to have glossed over that little gem.... must be the grease in those Wendy's fries, eh kiddo?
Old Doug Horne and his missives have got the nutters running far and wide these day's.... grab your socks and mittens, kittens -- 2010, it's just beginning...
-
Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?
Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming
Dean,
What kind of film was the FBI using?
Todd
still posting from Wendy's eh, Todd? I expected better from you old chap -- this rates up there with you and .joihn shooting at overstuffed, non-moving sandbags at 50 yards then declaring: yep, old Oswald got off 3 shots under 8 seconds....
the question we should ALL be asking is why did the 6th Floor Museum deny Rollie Zavada use of Zapruder's B&H 414PD film camera for his ARRB tests? let's get serious, huh?
-
Personally, I am sick and tired of the lies and evasions of Josiah Thompson... His conduct is reprehensible.
Many of us disagree with Josiah on specific aspects of the evidence, but nobody agrees with this characterization, and I suggest that Dr. Fetzer be placed on moderation until he conforms his behavior to forum rules on civility.
nah.... I suggest church services
Right-Elder Healy
-
David Von Pein has provided me with the following information.
But had Mr. Lifton taken a look at some more of Lyndal Shaneyfelt's
Warren Commission testimony, he would have been able to confirm for
himself the fact that Zapruder's camera WAS, in fact, used to create a
test film FROM ZAPRUDER'S POSITION ON TOP OF THE PEDESTAL. We find
that confirmation in Shaneyfelt's testimony at 5H162:
Here's the pertinent excerpt from page 162 of WC volume 5:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "What motion pictures, if any, were taken during the
reenactment?"
LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "During the reenactment the black-and-white
photographs were made from Zapruder's position with a Speedgraphic
camera and we also took motion pictures with Mr. Zapruder's camera
from Zapruder's position with the car in the fixed locations as they
were established with the car just stationary in those locations.
After establishing all those points and making these film records of
it, we then had the car proceed along that Elm Street route at
approximately 11 miles per hour, and filmed it with Mr. Zapruder's
camera loaded with color film from Mr. Zapruder's position and
simultaneously photographed it with Mr. Nix's camera from Mr. Nix's
position, and Mrs. Muchmore's camera from Mrs. Muchmore's position,
and this was done twice."
---------------------
It would, indeed, be very interesting to see that test film that was
shot with Abraham Zapruder's camera in May of 1964.
What's interesting is this Dunc....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...9ce3a9a2?hl=en#
quote on (David Von Pein 01-03-2010)
Duncan MacRae said this in a thread-starting post at The Education
Forum on January 1, 2010:
"The May 1964 FBI/Secret Service re-enactment in Dallas included
a test film shot with the Zapruder camera. The film is at the National
Archives waiting for someone to have it transfered to video. Perhaps
if the alterationists investigated this further, they could find out
information Re: the sprocket hole controversy and other debatable
issues. It puzzles me why they have never tried to gain access to this
avenue of research to prove their points, or have they?
Test films shot with the Nix and Muchmore cameras are also at the
National Archives. This information was provided by Gary Mack." --
Duncan MacRae; 01/01/10
quote off
...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...9ce3a9a2?hl=en#
you working with/for David Von Pein (the composite) these day's, Dunc?
-
<br /><br /><br /><br />Oh,I have gotten what I needed.I have always been intrigued by the medical evidence.The biggest question that I have ever faced was.... where could the alterations have occurred at & by whom?I had my suspicions that they might have occurred at Walter Reed,but this fits nicely into the puzzle.<br /><br />There is no question that Doug`s books will be in my possession as soon as I am able to buy them.<br /><br />Thank you for enlightening me with the information.<br />Here you go Michael. A little more of Doug Horne from Vol. IV.
At least one person is interested in what Doug Horne actually has to say rather than what others have suggested he says.
Doug Horne
Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery
I find myself in the rather ironic position of writing about the likely alteration of the Zapruder film, even though I was the point man for the ARRB in its commissioning of an authenticity study which concluded that the film exhibits many features consistent with authenticity. As stated previously many times in this book, there is uncertainty and conflict within virtually all of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination, and the Zapruder film, the pre-eminent home movie taken of the assassination in Dealey Plaza, is no exception to this general rule. In fact, the uncertainties about its provenance—once deemed unquestionable—are now more problematic than ever, and are not mere hairsplitting arguments over minutiae. There are substantial and responsible reasons to doubt the authenticity of the film because of: (1) serious irregularities in its chain of custody; (2) irregularities in its appearance inconsistent with its processing; (3) photographic inconsistencies between the extant film (the presumed 'original') and 'control' films shot during the authenticity study; and (4) major inconsistencies between eyewitness recollections of both the head wound(s) and events in the motorcade, and the image content seen in the extant film.
There is also probably more emotion, more Sturm und Drang, associated with arguments about the Zapruder film's authenticity than with any other evidentiary issue currently under debate within the research community.1 The first generation of JFK researchers assumed without question that the film was authentic; and that it was furthermore purchased, and then suppressed, by LIFE magazine (acting on behalf of the CIA) for that very reason—to withhold from the public the actual events of the assassination that took place in Dealey Plaza, because the film would have contradicted the lone assassin conclusion sponsored by the Warren Commission. Researchers who are convinced the film is authentic believe it to be 'ground truth' for the actual events in Dealey Plaza, a virtual 'time clock' of the assassination. While they acknowledge that interpretation of the events depicted in the film is subjective, they firmly believe that the Zapruder film is the baseline from which any true understanding of the assassination must proceed. To them, questioning the film's authenticity is the equivalent of heresy within the critical research community, and those who do so are viewed as before I can obtain the set
Page 1185
1 There is now a widespread consensus within the critical research community that there is something wrong with the autopsy photos. The current debate is simply over how this dishonest collection was created—namely, were the dishonest autopsy photos of the back of President Kennedy's head created by photographic forgery, or are they authentic images taken inside the camera which captured a temporary manipulation of reflected scalp after the conclusion of the autopsy? Similarly, since Dr. Humes admitted under oath in 1996 that he burned both his autopsy notes, and the first draft of the autopsy report, it is difficult to have any trust in the conclusions of CE 387, the extant version of the autopsy report. This lack of faith is compounded when one considers Robert F. Kennedy's apparent destruction of an earlier version of the report between April 1965 and October 1966, and the robust evidence of a series of content changes as the autopsy report evolved during subsequent rewritings. The Zapruder film is a different matter, however. The preponderance of opinion within the research community, at least among the 'old guard,' is that the film is authentic, and those who are persuaded (or suspect) otherwise are, as of this writing, in the minority.apostates. Gary Mack is a researcher who once openly espoused a conspiracy in JFK's assassination,v but who now works for the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, which officially proclaims Oswald's guilt.
The strongest epithet that Gary Mack (who was hired as the museum's archivist, and who is commonly referred to today as its 'curator') can use to describe a researcher who is persuaded that the autopsy photos and x-rays are in some way dishonest, or that the Zapruder film in the Archives is not the camera original, is to call them 'alterationists.' As used by him (and others), the term 'alterationist' connotes someone who is beyond the pale, who has discredited himself by adhering to and sponsoring heretical beliefs. The reason for all of this emotion is readily apparent: for if the extant film has truly been tampered with, if it is really a re-creation—a film with altered image content assembled in an optics lab to mimic a camera-original movie and thereby deceive history—then it means that the first generation researchers who have assumed the film is authentic have wasted literally decades of research studying the 'timing of the shots' in Dealey Plaza (or rather, the subjective and debatable reactions of the limousine's occupants to being impacted by bullets). No one would greet with equanimity being told that his approach to researching a subject has been incorrect—based on a false foundation—and that his life's work has essentially been a waste of time. This characterizes all fields of scientific and historical research, and explains the virulent passions aroused within academia whenever a new paradigm is introduced which calls into question the accepted research methodology for a given discipline. The more central the subject matter, the more those emotions are on display whenever the fundamental bases for a given approach are challenged. Thomas Kuhn's seminal 1962 work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, readily reveals this, as discussed previously in the Preface to this book.
I championed, and welcomed, the ARRB's sponsorship of an authenticity study of the Zapruder film by Kodak, because like all other researchers, I recognized its centrality to our present-day understanding of what happened in Dealey Plaza; indeed, study of the film has framed 4 decades of debate about what really did or did not happen during the assassination. My whole objective in going to work for the ARRB was to gain a better understanding of what had really happened during the assassination, and assessing the authenticity (or inauthenticity) of the Zapruder film was central to this goal—as important as studying the autopsy photographs and x-rays.
In late September of 1998, when the authenticity study was completed, I was simply grateful that Kodak had agreed to perform this task for the ARRB, and that we had been successful in getting them to do it on a pro bono basis. Physically and intellectually exhausted at the end of my frenetic three-year ARRB experience, I placed my copy of the report on the shelf, and didn't even begin to study it in any detail until May of 1999.2 What I began to find then, and continue to find today, is evidence within the report itself that casts doubt upon the film's authenticity. The author of the report, Roland Zavada, began with an obvious bias—he presumed that the film was authentic. I began my interaction with him with my own bias—I had nagging doubts about the film's
2 The report's author, Roland Zavada (hereafter r 2 eferred to as 'Rollie'), provided me in
1998 with an off-the-radar, unofficial copy of his report, mailed to my home address. Kodak officially printed eight copies; my understanding is that the ARRB clerical staff distributed six to the National Archives, one to Board Chair Jack Tunheim, and one to the Justice Department.
1186
authenticity. Neither of us, however, was firm enough in our own biases to call them beliefs; we both considered ourselves empiricists who were willing to go wherever the data led us. This situation was actually beneficial to the whole process, since the purpose of the study was to examine the film's authenticity in light of the doubts expressed by some in the research community. I played the constructive role of devil's advocate with Rollie throughout the period of his authenticity study.
Although there was no final conclusion in the report which summarized Zavada's findings in one paragraph, he noted throughout his study numerous ways in which the film's characteristics were consistent with authenticity. Since beginning to study Zavada's report, I have noted significant caveats to some of his conclusions which seriously weaken them, and other evidence that he published in his own report which I find dispositive in nature—which implies that the extant film in the National Archives—the purported 'original'—cannot be a camera original film.
The arguments for and against authenticity, based upon the contents of Zavada's report, will be covered later in this chapter. Today, when interviewed and asked whether he believes the Zapruder film is authentic or not, Rollie unambiguously says "it is." But he was more cautious in his report and never made any simplistic or outright declaration to that effect in its text. At one time in 1998, as the report was nearing completion, and as I was receiving frequent status reports from Rollie about his progress, he almost had me convinced that it was authentic. But since I began to study his report in detail in May of 1999, I have modified my position and now firmly suspect the extant film in the National Archives is a forgery, created from the true original in a sophisticated CIA photo lab at the Kodak main industrial plant in Rochester, New York. That's right: I just said that I believe that the presumed 'original' of the Zapruder film in the National Archives today was not exposed inside Abe Zapruder's Bell and Howell movie camera, but rather was created in a photo lab run for the CIA by Kodak, at its main industrial site and corporate headquarters, in Rochester, New York (using Abe Zapruder's camera-original film, of course, as the baseline). Astronomer Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Fair enough. I intend to provide that evidence in this chapter. Before I proceed I wish to make one thing perfectly clear: during the period 1996-1998, I had the highest respect and admiration for Rollie Zavada, and I did not believe, at that time, that he was part of any attempt by Kodak to 'cover up the truth.' The Rollie Zavada with whom I worked so closely for over two years, from 1996-1998, was in my judgment at that time a man of sterling integrity, and an honest actor in all respects. We just happened to disagree about whether or not the Zapruder film was likely authentic, I reasoned, because each of us honestly and independently imbued selected aspects of the evidence with differing levels of importance.
However, new revelations in 2009 about the handling of the Zapruder film at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) the very weekend of the assassination—which will be discussed extensively later in this chapter—have caused me, in retrospect, to reevaluate the possible role of Kodak in preparing an authenticity study of the Zapruder film for the ARRB. As will be revealed later in this chapter, in June of 1997 the ARRB staff became aware of evidence that pointed toward the possible creation of a modified version of the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination at Kodak's main industrial plant in Rochester, New York. Beginning in June of 1997, and throughout that summer, I became painfully aware that asking Kodak to perform an authenticity study of the Zapruder film for the ARRB (and the fact that Kodak agreed to do so on a pro bono basis, free of charge!) constituted a potential conflict of interest of major proportions. I knew that Jeremy Gunn, our General Counsel, was similarly not unaware of this potential or apparent conflict
1187
of interest. Was Kodak, as an institution, helping the Review Board study the Zapruder film's authenticity out of a genuine public-spirited desire to help better explain an important episode in American history, and because to do so would help Kodak's image and improve its troubled business profile? Or was Kodak merely pretending to play the role of an altruistic, neutral arbiter and judge, while actually covering up its involvement in helping the CIA create an altered film which has been misrepresented, both in 1963, and for decades, as the 'camera-original' film? Whether it was right or wrong, wise or foolish, Jeremy Gunn and I decided not to inform Rollie Zavada, the individual called out of retirement and selected by Kodak to perform the authenticity study, about the allegation we were privy to that the 16 mm wide unslit double 8 film handled and analyzed by Homer McMahon at NPIC the weekend of the assassination had actually been developed at Rochester, and not in Dallas, as the known paper trail indicated. David Marwell, the Executive Director, concurred.
We decided to let Rollie Zavada's authenticity study proceed on its own merits, based solely upon the basis of the film's contents, without prejudicing him or his company with knowledge of the allegation to which we were privy. After all, the allegation was based upon one man's memory of what the film he worked with at NPIC had looked like, and upon what another man had said to him about its provenance, and was not (at that time) supported by any other testimony or corroborating physical evidence. The film's authenticity, we hoped, was something that would be easily proven or disproved by scientific evidence, in an unambiguous manner, by Zavada's technical study. If there was strong scientific evidence that it was not authentic, or that even cast doubt upon its authenticity, we reasoned, we could then pursue the allegation that the film in the Archives today was developed in Rochester (instead of Dallas) with both the CIA and with Kodak, at a future date, if merited. To do so prematurely, we reasoned, would probably be perceived as an insult by the corporation that was providing us with free goods and services, and would, at the very least, create mutual suspicion and distrust. Furthermore, the cash-strapped ARRB did not want to 'kill the goose that was about to lay the golden eggs.'
There were two problems with this strategy, however, that were not readily apparent to us at the time. First, Rollie would not finish his report until September 25, 1998, five days before the ARRB ceased operations, which allowed us no time to pursue any further evidentiary leads when the report was received in Washington on or about September 28, 1998, the same day as our 'sunset' press conference at the National Archives. Second, the technical report did not contain any clearly stated conclusions that the film was authentic or not authentic. And although it listed several overt and easily identifiable characteristics that were consistent with authenticity, buried in the report's technical language and its exhibits was evidence that (in my opinion) actually cast doubt upon its authenticity. This was based upon differences between test film exposed in the same make and model home movie cameras in 1997 and 1998, and reproduced in 1963-era contact printers, and what is seen in the extant film, and the purported 'first generation' copies, today. Because the report was received and opened at the ARRB offices just two full days prior to shutdown, there was no time for me or anyone else on the staff to read it and carefully scrutinize its contents until months later, well after there was no longer an ARRB to take any follow-up action with either the CIA, or Kodak.
In 2009 an elaborate deception operation (explained in the Epilogue) was carried out against me by an intelligence operative who was obviously working for the U.S. government. Its sole purpose was to contaminate and discredit the contents of this book. In retrospect, therefore, I now look quite differently at the effort Kodak put into the creation of the Zavada report, and at the decisions that
1188
were made along the way that affected how some of the report's research was conducted (and not conducted). It is not entirely clear, at this stage, whether or not Kodak was the disinterested party in 1996-1998 that we had hoped, in regard to its analysis of the Zapruder film. I will explain in detail what I mean by this later in this chapter, and shall let each reader judge for himself.
thanks Bill for posting the above.... explosive stuff indeed! Said I wouldn't buy another book concerning JFK's assassination, looks like that is out the window...
Thanks again!
David
However Peter, in my estimation that is probably the most likely scenario...
B, EXCUSE CAPITOLS THANKS...MUCH..
The Present State of Doug Horne's Evidence
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David G. Healy
relax Len, simply refute, deny or obfuscate will ya? There's only 5 volumes, the lone nut contingent could be busy for the next 3-5 years.... no sense getting personal.
p.s. Bill Miller made a career out of using lousey imagery... ever see those gif animations.....