Jeff Carter

hi George If four or so consecutive frames were missing from the SS film there would be a distinct jump, much as seen in the spliced versions. The Warren Commission received a copy of the film from LIFE in December 1963. That copy likely not struck from the damaged original but from their copy, and so would be intact although 2nd generation. Also the FBI had a copy which they made from the borrowed Secret Service print and that also was intact. In February it was requested that the original be made available because, according to LIFE memo, “the FBI having trouble determining the trajectories of the shots.” The original was examined February 25 1964, and at that time LIFE agreed to make 35mm transparencies of Z frames 171-434 from the original. The FBI’s Shaneyfelt apparently set that range, describing it as “pertinent.” LIFE was never “missing” Z frames other than the damaged ones. Alexandra Zapruder should get credit for presenting a more detailed and complete “official” timeline of the film, with the addition of LIFE’s internal records.

hi George The Secret Service made a film late ’63/early ’64 about their reenactment, which features a black and white version of the Z-film - probably derived from one of their copies - which features the undamaged frames. Can be seen at around the 8 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkOp-y2do0 It is a poor print. I’ve seen better - maybe someone can point to a better version.

hi David You are right that there is very little to account for the Rowley copy received in DC late Friday. It is my understanding that copy did not have the inter-sprocket information of the original. So if that copy had been altered, that work would subsequently required a further effort to join the alteration with the missing information from the original. The alteration would have generational loss that the added missing information would not.

hi Karl The higher-ups at ARRB were not going to sanction damaging the film in support of, what may have seemed to them, a fishing expedition. Information mitigating against forgery - observable grain consistent with Kodachrome II, no technology available to accomplish the task, no time to do the deed, etc - had already been articulated. And it is clear, by the paragraph you shared, that the proposed “sensible” test would not have settled anything - “If the emulsion and dyes check out, that wouldn’t prove it was authentic…” One thing about the Z-film and ARRB which is interesting is that the film’s private ownership continued to hamper its analysis. Roland Zavada: “…tremendous complexity introduced by LMH Co. (established by Zapruder’s heirs) in their challenge to demand copyright license before any of the photographs I had taken could be used in the Kodak report…” see page 2 & 3 of his open letter. That is exactly what LIFE did to Josiah Thompson in 1967, except LIFE refused any access to the film and sued over reproduction (hand drawings based on frames). In 1998 the demand was compensation for using frame images in a report for the ARRB. In both instances it was ruled that use of the film was “fair use”.

hi Jim “In late January 2000, about six months after the arbitration decision was reached, our family donated the copyright in the Zapruder film to the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, the Dallas Museum that educates the public about President Kennedy’s assassination and memorializes him on the site where he was killed.” Alexandra Zapruder, Twenty-Six Seconds p 413 hi George That's frame 208. Maybe someone can step forward and direct to an online resource with numbered frames. Also, the third chapter of Sherry Fiester's book "Enemy of the Truth" is a discussion of issues such as the "brain matter" as seen in the film, which might clarify some of what you referenced.

hi Michael thanks for you kind words. As far as the shot sequence - what makes you sure that whatever the "throat shot" represents was the first incident in the sequence? Might not the strike in the back initiate the sequence, prior to going behind the sign?

hi David "re-constituting" the Z-film in the manner you have suggested was not possible, Hollywood special effects lab or not. You frequently cite the book Techniques of Special Effects Cinematography by Raymond Fielding. But Fielding’s own opinion of Zapruder film alteration is clear: “in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available … if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963, the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny … challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation … are technically naïve.” Your claim it makes "no difference what 8mm film stock the finished stock ended up on" is not a viable surmise. All film stocks have particular grain structure and exposure indexes, and alteration would need to match the particulars of the Kodachrome stock of the original. Zavada discusses this on page 18 of his response to Horne, which has been pointed out to you previously. I do agree that American taxpayers were poorly served. That the film copyright is in effect is controlled by the Sixth Floor Museum - which has not hesitated to request large fees for use of the film, as Shane O'Sullivan has attested - is outrageous.

hi george Thank you for the endorsement. Numbered Zapruder film sequences are available (frame numbers) and you might want to consult one to see what is visible Z-208-211. Your information re: brain matter is interesting. Seven consecutive frames could not be removed from the film without being noticeable, and I don't believe such matter could be convincingly removed from the film. It is possible that such matter was not discernible in the limited information field of the 8mm diameter frame.

hi Jim, Yes, that is a fair summary. Wholesale alteration, as theorized, using travelling mattes and/or removing persons from the frame was not possible using the optical printer technology - or, more precisely, would have produced rather crude and obvious results. This can be stated definitively. Minor alteration on the level of a painted blob for a few frames, or a black mask covering a wound, or perhaps the removal of a frame or two, is theoretically possible. I personally believe it is unlikely due to the difficulty in returning the resulting film back to a convincing 8mm KODACHROME II daylight film original. Referents to this difficulty appear in footnotes 9 and 10 in the article.

hi David The Zapruder film was screened at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969. Bootleg copies began circulating around that time. Previously, Josiah Thompson created his own set of transparencies at LIFE in early 1967. It is true it cannot be 100% certified the film was not tampered previous to 1967 as result of collusion between LIFE and federal agencies. However, control over the film was not absolute, certainly not at LIFE Magazine, and the film was examined by several groups including members of the FBI and a panel assembled by the Warren Commission in the first months of 1964.

hi George I joined the forum recently, anticipating questions would arise regarding the information presented in the article. Z frames 208-211 appear in most latter-day Z-film sequences as frames without the sprocket information seen in the original. Kennedy’s arms and throat are not visible in those frames. I’m not sure Brugioni has ever said the film was altered. I believe that has been an interpretation of his remarks. The “brain matter” can also be seen in Z-314, although to a much lesser degree. I cannot say what should be expected as visible to the Zapruder camera. The Zapruder film timeline has the original film handed to LIFE’s Richard Stolley at 10 AM Saturday Nov 23. Josiah Thompson did not say extra copies were made. He was making a point that those considering altering the film would have no way to ensure extra copies, which could expose the forgery, were not made. The FBI, for example, transmitted a memo suggesting they were making a copy from a Secret Service print.

List of items taken from the Paines is in Commission Exhibits - Stovall A http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=620&tab=page 1 Grey metal file box 12” x 6” youth pictures and literature 1 Black and grey metal box 10” x 4” letters, etc 3 Brown metal boxes 12” x 4” containing phonograph records Michael Paine being ID'ed as checking up on potential Castro sympathetic students at Luby's is verified. They brought him back to Warren Commission to discuss this. Paine had suggested it was something of a hobby, getting the "pulse" of political tendencies of Dallas residents. Phone record placing collect call between Michael Paine's office and Ruth's Irving home as Nov 22: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57772#relPageId=127&tab=page Both Paine's recalled a single phone call between those numbers occurred at 1 PM. Michael Paine left his office not too long after that. He was not at his office on November 23. The Paines never deny that call took place at that time. Fudging the date is led first by FBI (late Dec 1963 interview with MP), and then Liebeler of Warren Commission (March 1964 MP testimony), with Michael Paine playing along (but never outright lying).

Paul T - in my opinion, what this incident shows is that nothing in the record should ever be taken at face value. Your analysis is often riddled with unsupported assumptions. For example, Barger wasn’t “coaxed” into setting up a wiretap. The wiretap (if that’s what it was) was set up through the phone company, where Barger had been sent to “obtain a list of telephone tickets, or other helpful information”. Might Barger had a liaison or relationship with Dallas FBI? Possibly, because when Ruth Paine wants to deliver Marina’s cookbook with the so-called Walker note within, she specifically hands it to Barger. “Paul Barger's claim that Michael said that he knew Oswald was JFK's killer at 1pm is FALSE. That was the story being pushed by the JFK Killers. They had tried to frame LHO, and now they were trying to frame the Paines.” But the phone call and the approximate content is not disputed. Far from trying to “frame” the Paines, knowledge of this call may have been used to gain leverage on them. Hiding in plain sight in the record is a perfectly plausible, innocent explanation for the content of the call, but - after Odum interviews Michael Paine - no effort is expended trying to explain the call, everyone (FBI, Barger, WC, Paines) is trying to make it seem like it the call didn’t happen in the first place, or didn’t happen as first reported.

Paul T - Michael Paine’s statements to the FBI’s Odum should be considered in context of his WC testimony three months later (March 18, 1964), when he dissociates from the phone call and says “I didn’t know it was associated with our numbers…I thought it was in some other part of the country.” With Odum he is clarifying the content of the call, with the WC he denies any such call (although with the caveat such call occurred Nov 23). What’s really going on? Hard to say - the “source” is obfuscated in the record, an incorrect date is attributed, and the original reporting officer appears to make up stories two months after the fact and then again twelve years after the fact. But the fact of the call at 1 PM on November 22 is established, and that the Paine’s discussed who might be responsible for the shooting in context of Oswald seems to have been established. The dispute is whether this: “the male voice was heard to comment that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the president”, is accurate information or not (i.e. that is what actually was said). It seems apparent that all parties - Paines, FBI, Barger, WC - contributed to making this go away in 1964.

Phone records establishing the call in question happened November 22: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57772#relPageId=127&tab=page Michael and Ruth Paine both acknowledged a collect call that day from the listed numbers, and each said the call occurred at 1 PM. FBI restate the first memo, identifying source of information as Confidential Informant Dallas T-4, probably a wiretap: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10673#relPageId=71&tab=page Marina Oswald was wiretapped for months following assassination. Very possible a tap on Ruth Paine’s phone was generated by Marina’s presence - who was of more interest to Dallas FBI than her husband.

I identified the document as the "first" record. I examined this phone call in some detail in the final section of - https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-5 Barger incorrectly stated November 23. Phone records later clarified November 22. Both Paines acknowledge collect call from Arlington to Irving on November 22, same phone numbers as Barger's report, and place it at 1 PM.

Here is the first report on the Paine phone call - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57756#relPageId=51&tab=page The time was established as 1 PM by the Paines themselves, several times over the course of their Warren Commission testimony.

Just to be clear, the "we both know who's responsible" phone call happened at 1 PM. Oswald would not be publicly ID'ed as a suspect for another 90 minutes or so. It has never been established why either of the Paine's would suspect Oswald's involvement at all, 30 minutes after the shots.

The name JACK BOWEN (see FBI February 21 memo in last post) appearing with some kind of link to Kleinerer, real or just running out leads, is certainly curious. An article by Mike Sylwester is titled “The Name ‘John (Jack) Bowen’ in the Kennedy Assassination”, and describes three-or-four persons linked with that name who intersect the story, the most famous being Albert Osborne from the supposed Mexico City bus. Here is the Bowen from JCS: One such person had the real name John Caesar Grossi. He was born and grew up in Patterson, New Jersey. He became a criminal and served time in several penetentiaries. Nevertheless, in 1961, he managed to obtain a job in Dallas, Texas, as assistant art director at the Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall company, which among other activities, produced secret maps for the Department of Defense. By this time, he was using the alias Jack Leslie Bowen. In 1962, Lee Harvey Oswald was hired by this same company and became friends with Bowen. When Oswald obtained a library card, he wrote down Bowen's name and address on the card as a reference. (HSCA, vol 8, pg376; JFK F-505, B1-10) (CE2195 p66) Sylvester also says Fred Crisman linked to BOWEN name, and that an anonymous letter sent to Jim Garrison claimed that “one of Crisman's co-conspirators in stealing money from the CIA was a person named Martin Grassi.” Sylwester article available http://www.jfk-info.com/files.htm under “Bowen”. Bowen / Grossi disappeared in January 1964 (last known address Executive Inn, Dallas) and was never interviewed. Bowen / Grossi lived in Oak Cliff about 2 miles from Oswald’s Elsbeth apartment. He and Oswald both worked in the camera department at JCS. Oswald moved into the Oak Cliff neighbourhood on October 19, one week after being hired at JCS.

Paul T - “The FBI probably sought him out, not the reverse. The WC was under no obligation or pressure to take his testimony, since Kleinlerer had nothing to say about the JFK assassination.” Let’s be clear what’s in the record. Kleinerer first appears in a Secret Service memorandum dated Nov 27, 1963 (CD87, p223). This document describes items found in Oswald’s possession. A piece of paper found with Kleinerer’s import-export business address and phone numbers. Next to that listing it says: “This will also be run out by the Dallas office.” FBI memorandum dated December 3, 1963 (CD7, p104) interview with Kleinlerer (sic). “KLEINLERER stated that at this time when OSWALD came to move his wife, he slapped her in the face and caused her to go into another room crying.” FBI memorandum dated December 24, 1963 (CD223, p396) interview with Kleinlerer (sic) Kleinerer is asked if he knew of any association between Oswald and Ruby. No knowledge. FBI memorandum dated December 27, 1963 (FBI 105-82555 OswaldHQ File, Section 84 p108) details interview of Kleinerer from Dec19. Interview limited to the stationary page with letterhead found with Oswald’s possessions and Kleinerer’s business interests, along with brief description of Oswalds and Elena Hall. (this memorandum also placed in Oswald’s 201 file) FBI memorandum dated February 21, 1964 (CD693, p91) interview with Gary Lawler regarding a Jack Bowen. Lawler formerly employed at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, as was Bowen, and remembers Oswald. Bowen left JCS to get into import-export business. “He said he never heard JACK BOWEN mention Texas Import-Export Company and never heard of or knew a person whose name is ALEXANDER KLEINLERER.(sic).” Lawler is also asked about Ruby. So there was a previous mention by Kleinerer of slapping incident before affidavit, record corrected. Still - LHO chronic wife-beater all comes down to one witnessed incident, one direct eyewitness. Alexandra and Gary Taylor were also at the Hall home on that occasion, but neither saw this incident. What is curious about the FBI is the chronic mis-spelling of Kleinerer’s name - “Kleinlerer”. Misspelled in every memo except Dec27, all exactly same mistake, made by different agents. They also seem to be running something out related to Ruby and import-export businesses. Also interesting Dec 3 memo - Kleinerer describes his “very good” friendship with Max Clark, and that he spoke with Clark about Oswald before Oswald first arrived in Fort Worth.

No one is being accused of lying. These are people trying to recall events some 16-20 months in the past. Alexandra Taylor remembers Kleinerer confronting Oswald. Kleinerer says he never did because he was "afraid" of Oswald. Scepticism of Kleinerer's affidavit is warranted because a) no mention of these events to FBI seven months previous. b)Warren Commission did not see fit to take his testimony despite having been told he directly confronted Oswald c) affidavit offered no opportunity for follow up from WC attorneys well-briefed on these issues. It was, as suggested earlier in this thread, an outlier.

Oswald's last day at Leslie Welding was October 8, 1963. This can be verified by the address provided to forward the final cheque: PO Box 2915 in Dallas, which Oswald activated on October 9. Mrs Donald Hall (Alexandra Taylor)did not witness physical abuse but overheard gossip. She says she saw Kleinerer confront Oswald - but whether this was because Kleinerer actually saw Oswald slapping Marina or had simply been privy to the same gossip depends, I suppose, on the level of scepticism one applies to his late affidavit.

Talk that Lee was beating Marina was often combined with talk that Lee was unemployed, and the latter was not true. Oswald was unemployed for a total of three days in that period, coinciding with his relocation to Oak Cliff. The separation of the Oswalds seems to have been a project of the DeMohrenschildts. Their exact motivation is unclear. George variously claims it is because they are “helpful people”, or because he took a liking to Lee, or because he was trying to help him find work. Becoming a wife batterer only for a period of a few weeks when such behaviour or tendency does not appear before or afterwards seems a radical change. Gossip about it is limited to the older White Russians. Paul Gregory, the Oswald’s friend that summer, doesn’t indicate any such behaviour. Also, Oswald often exhibits an ability to remain calm and collected - as seen at the US Embassy in Moscow, later at the street altercation in New Orleans, in the Texas Theater, during his interrogations after arrest. Does not seem like a guy who would “snap” over a jealous pique, or feelings of inadequacy. There is another plausible explanation for why Marina would have facial bruising. Kleinerer goes out of his way to label LHO a jerk and a loser. He allows that he has a deep dislike of Oswald, based on believing he was a communist. Little of what he claims can be corroborated. He claims to be at numerous events, but others hardly mention his presence. His late affidavit was convenient for the WC, who otherwise had little but gossip to satisfy their “unstable prone to violence” Oswald portrait. Kleinerer gave an affidavit to the FBI December 1963, explaining why Oswald had a letterhead tied to him found with his possessions. In it, Kleinerer does not mention being around the Oswalds much at all.

hello - I was Jim's lurker. I had researched this topic 18 months ago for an article. In my opinion, Oswald was not physically violent with Marina, although they frequently quarrelled verbally. The so-called "19 witnesses" are largely repeating gossip and hearsay. Marina's bruising could have resulted from swelling from her abscessed tooth. Marina's claim that LHO was beating her occurred as she also claimed he had employment problems (which was not the case). Jeanne DeMohrenschildt told the Warren Commission that attempts were made, in that time period, to find somewhere for Marina to stay,separate from LHO, for 2-3 months. Stories of unemployment and spousal abuse served as pretext in the effort to get someone to take Marina in. The single eyewitness to alleged abuse - Kleinerer - provided his affidavit very late in the Commission's work, late June 1964. He takes every possible opportunity to make LHO into a jerk. There is no corroboration for the events he describes. There is a big difference in considering the separations of Lee and Marina in autumn of 1962 as the result of spousal abuse, or considering it as a preconceived (if only partly successful) plan relying on false pretexts.