Jeff Carter

Paul Trejo:  "4.  Alex Kleinlerer reports actually seeing the beating itself."

That's not exactly correct. Kleinerer's description is of an incident in November 1962, whereas the noted bruising was in late August/September of that year. Your bold text suggests an equivalence.

Sandy Larsen's scepticism as to whether there is a direct correlation between reports of Oswald's spousal abuse and the witnessed bruising on Marina's face is, in my opinion, well argued as the allegation, by the existing record, is largely rumour and second-hand accounts. He notes the witnessing by Paul Gregory of another possible explanation for such bruising, and I have previously offered a further possible explanation related to Marina's dental problems at the time.  

Marina Oswald herself is an extremely unreliable witness - which is not a value judgement necessarily, but the record cannot be seen as anything but. Look at CE993-994 for example, her account of life with Lee Oswald written for the Warren Commission, and compare that with sections of the later "Marina and Lee." 

That the two often quarrelled is undeniable - and Marina asserted that the quarrels would at times become physical - but hitting a person such that it leaves bruises is another level of assault altogether (defined as criminal), and I'm not sure there is much in Lee Oswald's background which supports a propensity for violence at that level. Marina briefly attests to Lee being physical in CE 993/994, but her aside does not at all support such severity. That distinction seems to be the dividing line in this thread.

An educated guess would place this as an FBI-directed tap on the Paine’s phone. The intended target may have been Marina Oswald. Extensive surveillance, including phone tap and room microphones, was admittedly directed at Marina in early 1964:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10098#relPageId=9&tab=page

Paul Barger reported that he “received information” (i.e. the Paine conversation) and that a “male voice was overheard”  (i.e. this conversation was listened to by either Barger or a phone company source, in real time or a recording). Internal FBI memo identifies source as “Confidential Informant Dallas T-4”, an identification known to refer to surveillance methods such as phone taps. Paul Barger would serve as an FBI intermediary with Ruth Paine as she discovered new evidence in Oswald belongings.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62437#relPageId=97&tab=page

Following the November 26 memo which describes the “male voice” speak of Oswald and “who is responsible” half an hour after the shots in Dealey Plaza and before JFK was announced dead, the handling of this information becomes rather muted. Michael Paine, for example, is not asked about the call for a whole month (http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10673#relPageId=72&tab=page). The FBI, and later the Warren Commission, treat this call as akin to a rumour and allow the mis-attributed date to inform Michael Paine’s denials. Paul Barger, for his part, would come up with several different unsatisfying stories about his “source” at the phone company.

However, it should also be noted that the FBI did conduct extensive investigation into the Paines and their background. And the Warren Commission lawyers would treat them with some suspicion. But the information from this phone call did not start any bells ringing - although the content could be interpreted as potentially explosive. This suggests the Paines were for some reason already cleared or above suspicion regarding the assassination per se, and the phone call itself was downplayed lest it reveal sources and methods or force the FBI to explain why friends and family of the “lone-nut” were being surveilled ahead of the assassination.

Here is the original FBI report:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57756#relPageId=51&tab=page

The information is presented as a summary , it is not a verbatim transcript. The date of the phone call is listed as November 23. Recently Ruth Paine,  as claimed by Paul Trejo, denied that Oswald’s name ever came up in this conversation. Otherwise the summary of the content of the call - “we both know who is responsible” - has never been challenged.

Here are the records of the Southwestern States Telephone Company which establishes the date of the call as November 22. Both Ruth and Michael Paine acknowledge they spoke on the phone, Michael calling from his Bell Helicopter office from the number listed in the FBI reports, at 1 PM that day. This call could not have been made the following day.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57772#relPageId=127&tab=page

Here is the same information as it appeared in the FBI’s January 7, 1964 Gemberling Report. This Report was withheld from the Warren Commission.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10673#relPageId=71&tab=page

In the Gemberling Report the information is attributed, in place of Paul Barger, to “Confidential Informant Dallas T-4”. This designation would lead to the claims that this must be referring to a wiretap. For his part, Paul Barger told several differing versions in 1964 and later in 1975 of an “individual” from the phone company who provided the information. Additionally, Paul Barger was specifically requested by Ruth Paine when she showed up at the Irving Police headquarters in the weeks following the assassination to pass along pieces of evidence she had allegedly found inside Oswald belongings.

Michael Paine and backyard photos - his testimony in 1963/64 only acknowledges seeing a backyard photo at DPD headquarters on the night of the assassination (the photos would not be officially discovered until the following afternoon). Paine describes his first meeting with Oswald in April 1963 in extensive detail to the WC, but never discusses being shown a backyard photo at that time. Only in 1993 does Paine start to claim Oswald showed him a photo.

The “we know who is responsible” phone call happened at 1 PM on Nov 22/63, confirmed by the Paines and phone records. 

The information about the content of the call came from an Irving police officer who had been assigned to the phone company’s offices. Therefore the “tap” appears to have been located at the phone company.

Attributing the date of the phone call to November 23 (rather than 22) first appears in FBI documents from December 1963. 

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jeff - That's interesting, and news to me. Of course, chatting with students is a far cry from files. I have not heard that Michael Paine was an informant. Not disbelieving it, just never thought of it. If he was, what was his connection with the Walker/Banister milieu? I'm aware that he and Oswald went to hear Walker speak. Do you dismiss DeMohrenschildt as the connector of the Paines to the Oswalds? 

 

 

Considering Michael Paine as informant of some kind relies on the veracity of the claim by Buddy Walthers that files with information on Cuban sympathizers were found at the Paine home. Those files would provide the unspoken context of Paine’s activity at Luby’s Restaurant in the Spring of 1963.  http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59614#relPageId=36&tab=page

During his Warren Commission testimony, Paine would refer to his inclination to “sense the pulse of various groups in the Dallas area.” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=420&tab=page   Ruth Paine was also apparently an informant of some kind in the 1980s.

The deMohrenschildt’s apparently did not know the Paine’s before the Magnolia Oil party in February 1963, when Ruth Paine met Marina. The host of the party was Everett Glover, who made the invitations. Ruth Paine would soon be persistently offering Marina the opportunity to separate from Lee. Jeanne deMohrenschildt would speak of a similar project to separate the Oswalds, prospectively for several months within the White Russian community, through the autumn of 1962. Also that autumn, George deMohrenschildt was trying to find Lee work in industrial security, and initiated the brief separations which did occur. 

I don’t think the Paine’s had connection or interest in the Walker/Banister milieu, but suspect person(s) with such connection were the link taking the Paines to the Oswalds. Ruth Paine enabled a separation just as Oswald was initiating his FPCC activity.

The files were probably Michael Paine's. The Warren Commission questioned him about reports he was chatting up SMU students about Cuba. Paine conceded he did this. Paine's WC testimony indicates he was an informant of some kind. 

In my opinion, the answer to "we both know who is responsible" is the person or persons who brought the Paines to the Oswalds in the first place. I believe such person(s) to have links to the Walker milieu and the Banister milieu.

On 5/21/2017 at 7:35 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Jeff,

Thanks for posting your 2015 article on Michael Paine and the Backyard Photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald.  Here are some comments.  Your text will be in red.

In 1993, Michael Paine began telling interviewers that Oswald had showed him a backyard photo when they first met in the Spring of 1963.  If Michael Paine’s relatively recent claim is actually true, then his Warren Commission testimony is severely compromised, a fact which appears to have escaped many mainstream journalists and network research departments (Jeff Carter, 2015).

You use the phrase, "severely compromised," Jeff, and then you explain why:

This event, if true, is entirely absent from Paine’s long and detailed description of his half hour with Oswald as told to the Warren Commission.

As I see it, Michael Paine withheld this fact about seeing the Backyard Photographs because of the "hang-em-high" atmosphere of the JFK investigation.  Observing the torture that was given to Sylvia Odio in Mexico City gives a clue to the mindset of Dallas, Texas -- seeking Communists to blame for the JFK assassination was a high priority.   That explains why Michael Paine would only answer the questions asked -- exactly as asked and no further.  Then you add:

If true, and Oswald was offering Michael Paine visual evidence of an apparent tendency to violent fanaticism, it is not at all clear why this troubling information was not passed to Ruth Paine as she continued to forge her friendship with Marina.  Ruth Paine claimed to the Warren Commission that she did not know Lee owned a rifle and would not have accepted the presence of a rifle in the same home as her children (Jeff Carter, 2015).

To use a phrase from Ernest Hemingway, "the rich are different from you and me."   Michael Paine's wealthy father was a Trotskyite Marxist.   Michael didn't favor Marxism, but he knew a lot about it -- far more than Oswald would ever know.   What Michael saw in Oswald -- very quickly -- was that Oswald was a Fake Marxist.

Furthermore, just because Oswald posed in a photo with guns, did not in the slightest prove that Oswald himself owned any guns.   Nor did it prove that Oswald was violent.  Nor did it suggest that Oswald was a "violent fanatic."  Instead, Michael Paine regarded Lee Harvey Oswald -- very quickly -- as a sort of clown.

(Michael Paine had no reason on April 2, 1963, to suspect the Backyard Photos of being Faked.

Ruth Paine was interested in Marina Oswald -- with utterly no interest at all in Lee Harvey Oswald.  Besides that -- Ruth could take care of herself.  Michael wasn't concerned.  He was bemused.  Too bad the interesting Marina Oswald came with this unfortunate baggage -- but she did.

Michael Paine denied the content of the call during an interview conducted December 23, 1963 by FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odum. “Mr. PAINE advised that on November 23, 1963, he did not make any statement to anyone that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President but did not feel OSWALD was responsible ... Mr. PAINE advised that what he did say, in fact, in a conversation with his wife, was that he was not sure that OSWALD had killed the President, because at that time he had no facts at his command ...” (Jeff Carter, 2015) 

Michael Paine was being entirely truthful -- according to what Ruth Paine told me personally (12/12/2015).  While Michael did add, "We both know who's responsible," meaning the Dallas Radical Right (says Ruth Paine), Michael never said that he felt sure that Oswald killed JFK.

We do agree that Paul Barger’s story of a telephone repairman -- or that he could not remember -- lacks credibility.  A good wiretap has reliable documentation, but this wiretap was, IMHO, politically motivated.  

Ruth Paine does not deny that the call happened -- she does deny that the transcript of the call was correct.  Also, she remains upset that the US Government has refused to tell her honestly who tapped her telephone on 11/22/1963.  Since I believe that Ruth Paine is telling the truth -- it is reasonable for me to presume that Michael Paine would agree with her.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

hi Paul

thanks for taking time to read the article. Just to clarify: I believe Michael Paine's 1993 claim that he had been shown a backyard photo by Oswald in April 1963 severely compromises his WC testimony based on Paine's painstaking detail in describing handling the blanket later alleged to have held the assassination rifle and presuming it instead held camping equipment. The backyard photos portray a figure not just holding but rather brandishing and exhibiting leftist political literature and firearms, which in the context of conservative America (Dallas) in 1963 is a provocative gesture which Michael Paine would have presumably been savvy to. That he would not have informed his wife about this, or suspected more than camping equipment when handling the blanket some months later is hard to believe.

Paul Trejo - “when the radio news mentioned the TSBD, bells in Michael's head went off.”

hi Paul, 

Having read through the testimonies of both Paines, I must say that my impressions and conclusions  are quite different from yours. In my opinion, you tend to take things at face value and so bypass important context.

Specific to the phone call, Michael Paine’s testimony to the Warren Commission does not really imply that “bells went off”, rather he agrees that his first impression was that Oswald was not involved. He also claims the 1 PM phone call to Ruth occurred before he heard the TSBD mentioned on the radio, although what would then motivate bringing up Oswald (as reported to the FBI after review) is unknown. Michael Paine’s account of monitoring the immediate aftermath of the shooting at Bell helicopter differs somewhat from what Frank Krystinik would say. But between the two accounts, and because Oswald was mentioned in the phone call, it seems that the TSBD had been mentioned on the radio, Krystinik was suspicious of Oswald, and MP decided to check in with Ruth. Why either Paine would assume Oswald “was involved” based solely on the location is hard to fathom.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=433&tab=page

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Jeff - thanks for posting.  Would you happen to know where the phone tap originated from - meaning from M Paine's place of work or their home phone?

Irving Police captain Paul Barger was assigned to the Southwestern States Telephone Company in Irving, and it was there he developed the information about the phone call. “He said he felt sure the information he furnished SA LISH had come from some telephone company sources, but he was still unable to identify the individual who related it to him, and he was unable to recall whether it was related in person, or by a telephone call.”

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10730#relPageId=91&tab=page

The phone records gathered by the FBI concern the Paine home, not Bell Helicopter. Although not explicitly determined, it appears the tap was on the Paine home phone and the records (or recordings) of the tap were held at the telephone company.

I discussed the Nov 22 1 PM phone call in Part 5 of my Backyard Photo series. I’ll link it because the footnotes lead to primary documentation of this event:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-5

The Warren Commission, via counsel Liebeler, deliberately made the call appear to be a rumour, and so it was disappeared from the record until the mid-70s when Bernard Fensterwald came across the declassified Gemberling FBI report which identifies the source of information about the call as Confidential Informant Dallas T-4. Irving Police Captain Paul Barger, who initially uncovered the information, made contradicting statements in 1964 and 1976 designed to deflect the source of the information away from the likely wiretap. This tap may have been installed at the phone company rather than in the Paine home. The focus of the tap may have been Marina Oswald rather than the Paines. 

The issue neither Paine has accounted for is why did Oswald, in their minds, figure in the shooting which had occurred only 30 minutes earlier? This has not been clarified because neither was interviewed by the HSCA (despite the controversy sparked by Fensterwald), or later by the ARRB. (I agree that if the Paines had pre-knowledge of the assassination they would not have made this call). It’s likely that the explanation is simply that the call was immediately preceded by an exchange between Michael Paine and Frank Krystinik, after the initial identification of the TSBD, during which Krystinik urged Paine to contact the FBI re: Oswald. Krystinik had been introduced to Oswald, by Michael Paine, on October 25 when the three men attended an ACLU meeting, and had been offended by Oswald’s “Marxist” viewpoints. This simple explanation was not pursued or developed, it seems, to protect FBI sources and methods plus the uncomfortable acknowledgment, or emphasis, that the Oswalds were in the radar all along. Which underlines the official cover-up.

A Jack W. Martin was identified as a possible suspect in JFK assassination before Oswald was apprehended.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=604&tab=page

hi Paul

Michael Paine’s claim, beginning in 1993, that Oswald showed him a backyard photo in April 1963 is best considered with healthy scepticism. For one thing, it calls into question key parts of his WC testimony, particularly his painstaking descriptions of handling the “rifle blanket” thinking it held camping equipment, and how he never suspected Oswald might own firearms. His description to the WC of meeting Oswald that April is very detailed as well - no BYP.

Also, at least three BYP third poses were unearthed in the mid-70s, all from former Dallas PD. 

And there is no record of a BYP seen before the evening of the assassination, although the DeMohrenschildt copy may have been placed in the record album before then.

7 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Good  point Jeff. But  can  you  comment  on  my GIFs? Just  wanted  to  get  your  thoughts.

I wonder when exactly the 1967 recreation was made. I am referring to the bush behind the figure - it looks like winter (or it is dead). 

There’s an obvious difference between the growth of the bush behind the Oswald figure in the original BYP, and that same bush in the DPD recreation dated to late November 1963. I don’t know anything about plants in the Dallas region, but a comparison between the growth of the two might help locate when the original BYP were taken (i.e. in the spring or in the summer).

That HSCA panel applied photogrammetry science big time examining shadows and sun angles etc, but at the end of the day everyone had to admit that a skilled forger with good equipment could swap an Oswald face onto another’s body. That’s why the BYP had to be approached in terms of their provenance, and that’s where the HSCA came up short.

The HSCA put a fair amount of resources into a photographic “authentication” panel which examined the backyard photos extensively (see HSCA Appendix VI), and yet they were unable to explain the third pose which appeared at the time of their deliberations. R.L. Studebaker, of the Dallas Police, was interviewed to supposedly clear this issue up. The Studebaker executive testimony, regarding handling of photographic evidence by the Dallas police, is now available online: 

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146602&search=Studebaker_October+5+1978#relPageId=2&tab=page

Studebaker’s testimony leaves most of the important questions unanswered, and the HSCA left it at that. If the photos are authentic, as the HSCA’s panel suggests, then this third pose is confounding as there is no accounting for it in the developed story of how these photos came to be, and no accounting for how it ended up with the DPD shortly after the assassination. If the photos were faked, then the twelve year silence regarding the existence of this third version strongly suggests the provenance of the faked photos was known by, at least, the Dallas PD - and possibly Secret Service and FBI as well.

The HSCA really dropped the ball on this one.

hi David J

It’s my understanding that the private Zapruder footage in the Z-film was returned to the family, while the motorcade sequence was sent to the Sixth Floor Museum, after its official validation. The head and tail leaders tabulated in the handwritten note from 1997 are typical presentation for an archival film.

IMO, Zapruder kept his film initially because he articulated his property rights and was also cooperative.

If the Zapruder camera was shifted from RUN to SLOW MOTION during the assassination sequence, the transition from 16fps to 48fps would not have been immediate but ramped (gradual). 

Any calculations using the Zapruder film to determine time-based measurements such as mph of vehicles are at best “ballpark”.

Regardless, we both arrive at the same conclusion: the apparent shooting sequence cannot be reconciled with the lone nut three shots bolt action rifle paradigm.

6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

There sure is precious little said about those viewing as well...   From what I remember they showed the film at Kodak at much higher speeds.  And yes, for alteration to work some of what we know to be true according to Zapruder, can't be.  What I find equally puzzling is how a 16fps camera can move at 18fps when to that point weren't projectors showing at 16?

Other than the variable models which ran at 15fps-25fps, projectors ran at 16fps to match the camera speeds which I believe were changing to 18fps right around 1963...

I find the conclusion of 18.3 fps just another FBI trick to accomplish what was necessary.

To me, this suggests he started filming the motorcade well before what we see on z133.  And if so, then we must deal with Pos A and everything that suggests. Even without the statement, POS A remains a wrench in the works.  I'd suggest reading Shaneyfelt's testimony and the "MATH RULES" thread.  There is nothing right about POS A yet it was important enough to include in the "4th survey to debunk them all" with photos and everything...

Any ideas?

Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

 

BELL & HOWELL 253 AX 
8MM SILENT PROJECTOR & CAMERA OUTFIT

• Standard 8mm Bell and Howell complete home movie outfit with 253AX projector (completely refurbished), camera with sundial, and flood lights. All in New condition with all original factory packing in the original boxes. Projector features 400' reel capacity, set running speed of 16 frames per second, forward projection only. Using the DFC, DFA or DCH 150 watt 120 volt bulb and 1 inch f1.6 lens. Like New condition and runs beautifully. With all instruction books, 400' reel and test film. Camera, projector and flood lights in perfect working condition and ready to use - $349   (No Discount)

We are looking at the same data but with different reference frames. You and Chris D are seeing the plats etc through the frame of Z-film alteration, while I (and others) see them as attempts to in effect pound a square peg (shot sequence evidence seen in Z-film) through a round hole (three shots/one bolt action rifle).

The clue I think most important is that the Secret Service were intent, at NPIC Brugioni event, to determine timings between perceived shots. They insisted even after Pearse told them it was a useless effort if they were trying to be accurate. So now the investigators are counting frames. It gets determined that the bolt action rifle needs minimum 2.8 seconds to operate (Frazier FBI says 4.6 seconds to fire two shots, add one second if moving target) which is understood as about 50 Z-frames (at original determination of 18fps). 

So this is how I understand all these original measurements- they were trying to create a shooting scenario which fit the characteristics of the found rifle. Does anyone see Connally first hit at Z-264, or even Z-242? These are among the scenarios being measured. A late shot beyond Z-312? Being considered because one can plausibly count the frames and say Oswald did it. How many of these surveys went down? I count three or four, which change the parameters every time.

If there is anything "new", or at least developed in more detail than previously done, in my Part 2 essay - it is about the properties of the Zapruder spring-wound camera, and the implications regarding the "average" camera speed (18.3 fps). The section is called The Zapruder Camera Is Not A Clock.

I expected a few questions on that topic.

FWIW, I doubt those Bell & Howells ever ran at (approx) 16fps, they were closer to (approx) 18fps. But that has to be understood in terms of its "constantly varying operating speed."

54 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Interesting Jeff...  I've spoken with Chris a number of times and don't remember his mentioning that....  I too thought Sat's Dino event was 20 hours after the film is in DC...

Quite a lot can be done in 20 hours....   Any thoughts about the 48fps speed throughout?

hi David

you say "quite a lot can be done in 20 hours" a little too casually. NPIC and Hawkeye were working primarily with U2 / satellite input, not motion picture. If something was so obvious to know to remove relatively immediately, then wouldn't have the film just been seized in the first place, no copies made.

48 fps, as you have established, would allow for fairly seamless frame removal after the fact. Here's what makes me pause: at 16fps projection, the sequence would play back at a full 3 times slowed down (i.e. the approx 7 second shooting sequence would be 21 seconds). A fair amount of people saw the film Friday, and a number have discussed that experience, but I don't recall anyone who even hinted it played before them in slow motion, even though it would be one of the most obvious things.

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Frame movement leading up to data that states the limo traveled at 2.24 or 3.74mph (depending on what version of CE884 you choose to use) from extant zframes 161-166 or z168-z171. Nice head turn also.

Extant film including tape across z154, missing z155-156 and a 157 splice.

 

hi Chris

I have to admit I find many of your posts rather cryptic.

Did you have a chance to see the article, particularly the section on the Z-film not being a clock (spring-wound camera)?

hi David J - I'll have to respond piecemeal...

re: Rowley print

5 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

Jeff, Hi, and BS re "professional scrutiny"! Here's a simple test, Jeff. How do YOU, or, a post-production film lab tech "prove" the Kodachrome II Zap film currently stored at NARA is a 1963 in-camera, 8mm film original? And don't go to Rollie Zavada's canned report re the Zapruder film. I asked Rollie the same question years ago, amongst other questions. Dr. John Costella had a few questions and comments too...

Actually, Rollie was suppose to appear at the 2003 Univ. of Minn Symposium (Jack White, John Costella, David Mantik and David Lifton and myself) on the Zapruder Film. He never showed up. That was a shame, and I told him same. He did tell me though he's an expert re the make-up of 8mm film (which I knew from his Zavada Report). He did admit to be a bit short on professional film compositing experience and knowledge, that's why he sought Professor Fielding input.

hi David

How does one “prove”…? Zavada’s report combines characteristics of what would be expected if the film was a 1963 in-camera original - which all exist - with characteristics expected if the film had been reconstituted through an alteration process - which don’t exist. But I notice you have dismissed Zavada’s report. Your dismissal would have more substance if you could a) offer a substantive critique of a flaw in Zavada’s analysis or demonstrate a film practice which runs counter to established wisdom. 

i.e. what “proof” do you have the film has been altered?  All I have ever seen is the waving of the Fielding book as constituting some kind of proof of the possibility - even as Fielding himself asserts that you do not know what you are talking about. But I see you dismiss Fielding now too (“professional scrutiny BS”). 

The alteration argument seems to consist of identifying anomalies within the film, and then positing that alteration or fakery must be the single answer to these assumed anomalies. The lack of a limousine slow-down is the most frequently cited anomaly, but clearly such slow-down is in fact visible.

36 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jeff

Shortly after Homer McMahon finished his job on the second set of briefing boards, copies of the altered original were made and given to the SS and FBI. The copies that were made in Dallas were destroyed. The altered original was handed back to Zapruder and then recovered by LIFE through negotiation with Zapruder.

What this means is that not one Zap film seen on the internet shows frames Z-208 to Z-212.

hi George

I am sorry but I don’t know what to say at this point. Zapruder frames Z-208 through Z-212 can be viewed in the folder created by John Costella which was shared with you previously, and those frames appear, for instance, in the motion sequence created by NPI for the “Images of an Assassination” DVD. These frames, from first generation prints, do not have the inter sprocket information seen on the original. 

Zapruder handed over the original film to LIFE on Saturday Nov 23, 1963. So if an “altered original” was to be swapped on Monday Nov 25, that would have happened directly with LIFE. LIFE also had a print which would need to be swapped, and also a check of frame blowups done Saturday/Sunday would have to occur, to be sure no compromising information was appearing in those. LIFE employees who handled the original film would have to be screened. There is no evidence that any of the above occurred.

Alteration to the Zapruder film is a suspicion, not a fact. No hard evidence has yet appeared to support that such a thing did happen. 

You said - “The touch up paint job on Kennedy´s head is obvious…”

This is why I referred you Sherry Fiester’s book, as her detailed Chapter Three discusses this, and does not support the notion of alteration in this instance.

6 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jeff

If a first generation copy of the original w/o the damaged frames existed why wasn´t it given to the Warren Commission for their investigation?

My earlier statement about the Warren Commission not having the frames necessary to see the effects of the first and second shots is still valid.

Why would a private enterprise have ownership of a copy of forensic evidence in a murder case and be trusted to give that evidence to a government agency investigating the murder case? The evidence should be transfered from a federal agency to the Warren Commission.

hi George

The Warren Commission and the FBI had all of the frames of the film as a 2nd generation print, and also 35mm transparencies as requested by the FBI. That is the full extent to what they asked for and apparently required for their inspection.

The investigating authorities, specifically the Secret Service, allowed, wisely or not, Zapruder to control and ultimately sell his film. LIFE, the ultimate owners, cooperated fully with the Warren Commission - screening the original film in February and creating the transparencies from the original.

As I said, Don Thomas’ questions are cited from Harold Weisberg - who asked these questions in 1976, a time when information regarding the Z-film vis-a-vis the Warren Commission was a lot sketchier. The questions have mostly since been answered.

2 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

thx ... no, my post is about Doug Horne and how he was fooled in 1997 by Gunn, Zavada and Samoluk ... this three men where part of an investigative body ( ARRB) with 100 of thousands of cash at their disposal ... and they acted like fools, when it comes to go to Dallas and shot  a reference film with Zappis cam, or a similar one ... to compare it with the so called original Zapruder-film ... no such reference film exists down to the present day because of the strange behavior of this ARRB guys ... Gunn, Zavada and Samoluk ...

 

 

hi Karl

Horne may have had more success making an effort to locate the materials generated from the speed tests of Zapruder’s camera in late 1963. Those reels of film would have the appropriate sprocket information to compare with the Z-film, with the benefit of having been created soon after events (rather than pulling the camera out of a closet after 34 years). 

I don’t believe the ARRB had 100s of thousands dollars at their disposal. One explanation for the scepticism shown Horne is that he was already convinced what he was looking for, rather than affecting a more objective stance.

hi George

No one is necessarily mistaken, information regarding the Z-film was incomplete for many years. 

According to the record, the Warren Commission had access to a fully extant 2nd generation print of the film. They also had a set of 35mm slides struck from the Zapruder original, representing Z-frames 173-434, missing four frames, Z-208 through Z-211 due to a technician’s error. It was the FBI who requested that this sequence of transparencies begin at frame 173. These slides were created after the film had already been damaged. The first generation prints were made before, and retained the original film’s damaged frames. The “missing frames” are today readily accessible. Weisberg’s information, cited by Thomas, was only partial in 1976. LIFE cooperated with the Warren Commission, providing a print in December 1963 and later creating transparencies.