Roger Odisio

The idea that the killers would have in place a plan to get away with the murder and get the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place is a logical deduction from everything we know both about human nature and the murder. Plus what we know about the power possessed by the people likely behind the murder. It's not an assumption. It's sad that you continue to misrepresent this point as if you don't know the difference between an assumption and a deduction. On the other hand, your unsupported speculation that the killers would not have had such a plan, but instead depended on an unnamed group to save their skin and achieve those changes manifestly defies the most basic logic for self preservation. As I said your alternative explanation that there was a group of folks that wanted to blame a communist conspiracy that were later overruled somehow is easily seen as nonsense. Your proof that the first group intended to blame such a conspiracy was based solely on the fact that the murder was accomplished by multiple shooters! You conclude therefore that the planners must have *intended* to blame a conspiracy! Rather than the straightforward explanation that they used multiple shooters to maximize their chance to kill Kennedy. Their top priority. There were people who wanted to go after Cuba but they weren't found in the leadership of the planners. Because anyone who wanted to risk nuclear war with the Soviets in such a way was insane. Such a war was already recognized as unwinnable. The fact that such claim of conspiracy was entirely missing from officials right away as the coverup plan began is an indication that it likely never was seriously considered, let alone was the main plan of the killers. Surely you must understand, as I'm sure the planners did, that Johnson was never going to implement such a crazy idea at the beginning of his administration. I consider this passage to be progress of a sort. Originally you claimed the planners would have simply destroyed the Z film. There was no need to try to alter it. This was easily shown to be false because altering the film had clear advantages. There was a remaining copy they could claim was the original (which they did). Govt officials and the public at large quickly learned of the Z film and what it had captured. And that Life was going to publish stills from it early in the following week. The anticipation was palpable. Altering the film instead of destroying it relieved them from having to explain what happened to that crucial evidence. There was another reason why they preferred alteration. Life's publishing of the stills served to fool the public into thinking they had seen everything about the murder it was necessary to see. That was important when they later came to bury the film from public view after alteration failed. I'm going to optimistically assume we will hear no more from you about why they would have simply destroyed the film instead of trying alter it. Now you're back with another deceptively simple reason why they wouldn't have tried alteration. You say forget about that possibility. Hiding it from public view, which we know at some point they did, for as long as they could get away with, was enough. But it's not enough of an explanation, and your claim doesn't comport with other things we know or can reasonably deduct. A few preliminary questions. If they decided to bury the film and instead of first trying to alter it, when did they make that decision? And who is "they"? Was Life magazine acting in its own corporate interest in doing that? Note Life's eventual decision to bury the film exactly met the needs of the perps running the cover up. Life's original deal Saturday morning with Zapruder allowed them limited rights to use the original film for a few days to make stills for their magazine. They were then supposed to return the original to Zapruder in exchange for a copy he had retained. (Note that Life clearly preferred to us the original to make its stills, while you've been arguing in essence that Govt investigators would have been satisfied with using a copy for their much larger and more important job of making briefing boards for officials investigating the murder. So they never asked Jackson for the original he had that Saturday or even entertained the idea.. The original deal with Zapruder establishes that Life did *not* intend to bury the film that Saturday morning. They were supposed to give the original back to Zapruder. That's clear. When did they change their mind? and why? What caused their mind to change and eventually hide the film? There are some clues. Later that Saturday McCone ordered Lundahl to have briefing boards made at the CIA's NPIC lab to better see what happened. Making briefing boards was standard procedure. Lundahl took the finished boards and briefed McCone with them early Sunday. McCone then briefed Johnson. At that time Johnson, McCone, and Lundahl all could see that the boards contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with. What to do? Early Sunday morning, before the boards were finished, the two couriers who had brought the film to NPIC, left with it to go somewhere. But where? "Bill Smith" returned later Sunday with a version of the film saying he was coming from the Kodak plant in Rochester. A second set of boards was then done that night that Brugioni explained were different from the ones he did the night before. Why was a second set done? And for whom? Was the film used for the second set different from the one used to make the first set? If not, why was a second set of boards done? McCone, who had asked for the first set to be done, and then Johnson had already been briefed about what those boards showed. What was the second set for if it wasn't to verify the new film as the replacement for the film Brugioni had worked on? Why was Brugioni's boards later destroyed if it wasn't so they couldn't contradict the second set of boards? Hiding the film from public view was always an option. The question before us, however, is whether they first tried alteration, and failing that, resolved to hide the film. With the second deal consummated on Monday, Llife clearly had in mind burying the film. But why? Life paid Zapruder a lot of money, eventually $1.5 million in todays dollars, for the full rights to the film. Was Life solely acting in its own corporate interests to keep the film out of public view after that? Who made the decision to bury the film? CD Jackson? Henry Luce? Life's decision to bury the film precisely coincided with the needs of the killers' coverup plan. What does that mean? After 12 years Life returned the film to Zapruder for $1. Why would they do this simply because some of the public saw a bootleg copy of it on TV? The only thing that had happened was that Life's ability to fully prevent people from seeing that film had ended. IOW, their job of hiding the film was over. The decision to give the film back to Zapruder can be seen as verification of Life's role in hiding the film. You can ignore all of this if you want to and avoid discussing what was done with the film between the time it left NPIC until it was returned maybe 10-12 hours later. But the question remains. What changed Life's mind about its original deal with Zapruder?. What caused them to rip up the original deal with Zapruder and strike one that gave Life full control over the film? I suggest that what changed their mind, and what led to a new deal with Zapruder is straightforward. When the briefing boards verified that the film contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with, they decided to try altering the film in secret at HW. When they couldn't conceal enough of the incriminating details they fell back of their second option. Hiding the film from public view as long as they could get away with.

According Salandria quoting from White's book, the officials on AF1 "learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the identity of Oswald and his arrest". From Salandria "this was the first announcement of Oswald as the lone assassin, before there was any evidence against him, and while there was overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy". We don't have the tapes of the message. That's all we know of its content . White had apparently access to the messages before he wrote his book. You've turned this into some kind of briefing for Johnson by Bundy about what he should do with the claim that Oswald was a lone assassin. Where did that come from? As far as I know no one at that point, including Johnson, asked Bundy for such advice. Moreover, you ignore what to Salandria and me is important about the message. It was directed at the other officials coming back to DC, not Johnson. Telling them the murder had already been solved; don't interfere. How else do you explain that the same message was sent to the plane loaded with officials coming back from Hawaii? Johnson wasn't on that plane. There's no denying the purpose of that message.

Congrats, Sandy; you succeeded in getting a response from Jeremy to your last point, which I had put in front of him more than once with no response. Here the response: "It doesn't seem unreasonable that a political insider like Bundy would work out quickly that a lone-nut interpretation would be the safest option, from the point of view of the political establishment. Once he heard that an individual had been arrested in Dallas, he promoted the idea that this individual was indeed a lone nut. There's no need to assume that Bundy's action was part of a pre-planned scheme. A simpler explanation is available." Once he heard about Oswald being arrested and before he was charged with the murder, Bundy, on his own as an official speaking for the White House from the Situation Room, quickly calculated that he should tell the top officials coming back to DC (the ones on the plane from Hawaii as well as those on AF1) that *as a fact* Oswald killed Kennedy as a lone assassin. He had no prior knowledge of a more important fact--the actual plan, not mentioned by Jeremy, already underway to blame Oswald. He was merely trying to protect "the political establishment". From what, Jeremy doesn't say. And he had the authority from the new president, completely isolated from the coverup planners, to make such a crucial statement of fact on his own to these top officials. Here Jeremy is posing as an advocate of Occam's razor. The simpler answer is typically preferred to the one requiring more details. But Jeremy's answer is not simpler. It requires suspension of disbelief on several points. The simpler answer is that Bundy was aware of the plan worked out before the murder to blame Oswald. He was implementing it. It's important to understand that the message to AF1 was not primarily directed at Johnson. It was intended for the top Kennedy officials should they even consider contradicting the Oswald story the planners were already going with. Including the ones riding in the motorcade who expressed the the initial thought that Kennedy was killed by multiple shooters including at least one from the front. The initial, important hurdle for the coverup to surmount was to convince top officials in DC who had a reason to doubt the Oswald story that it was futile to do so. See Vince Salandria's vivid analysis of this point in his false mystery speech 26 years ago, which I have quoted several times. What they had seen in DP, Salandria said, was of no consequence. The patsy had been selected and the conclusion of conspiracy ruled out. The assassination had been "committed by a level of US power that was above and beyond punishment". The messenger was speaking for the killers. They were successful. They could then turn to the rest of Washington and the public with the press in hand to help them. It was Salandria who first discovered the messages because they had been mentioned in both Theodore White's The Making of the President, 1964, and Pierre Salinger's With Kennedy. He spent years contacting mostly federal agencies trying to get the tapes. Ultimately he was rebuffed by a combination "we can't find them" and "they're government records you're not entitled to see". This was before the JFK Act of '92. Note to Bill and Larry: are these messages on your list of things to ask NARA to add to the JFK Collection? Salandria's frustration led him to give a speech, I think it was in the '80s, directly fingering Bundy as one of the "top echelon" of officials in JFK's own administration who were behind his murder. He wanted Bundy to sue him. Bundy didn't.

Your regurgitation of this already discredited nonsense has me wondering why I'm still responding to you. Most sentient human beings in 1963 understood that a nuclear war with the Soviets was unwinnable. That the real deterrent to such a war was that it would lead to Mutually Assured Destruction of the globe. That idea was replacing defense systems as the real deterrent. Among those rational beings was Lyndon Johnson, the president who would have to implement the strategy of blaming Cuba/the SU. He wanted no part of risking such a war at the beginning of his administration. The reasons you have given for asserting that the planners wanted to use the the murder to blame the SU, are ludicrous. 1. that's why they picked Oswald the commie as the patsy, and 2) you know that's what they intended to do because they used multiple shooters! (I'm still chuckling about that one as I type it) In short the idea to use the murder to go after Cuba/SU was never a serious consideration of any the top planners (evil, but rational as they were). The total absence of that claim from officials once they began blaming Oswald right after the murder should help you understand that. That leads me back to the central point of my last note. Once officials starting blaming Oswald as the lone nut assassin, whenever you think that was, that means the Z film which contradicts their story, became a central and immediate problem to be dealt with. Your oft repeated claim that they never had a reason to do anything with the Z film is false.

Bad point, Jean. See the answer to this question as repeatedly posted by Jonathon, that I just posted.

I haven't ignored the point, Jonathon. I've tried to ignore the false use you make of it that you keep repeating, what, 5 or 6 times now. Zapruder had been on TV the afternoon of the murder describing what he captured on film. There was a bidding war the morning after the murder for rights to his film. Life paid him $1.5 million (todays' $) for full rights at the time and the family eventually collected another $16 million from the govt to include it in the JFK Collection at NARA. A few days after the weekend, Life was to publish stills from the film for everyone to see. It was quickly understood, particularly by the officials in charge of investigating the murder, that the Z film was one of the most important pieces of information about the murder. That Saturday, McCone ordered briefing boards to clarify what the film showed and he was briefed by Lundahl early Sunday morning. McCone then briefed Lyndon Johnson. By that point at the latest, they all knew the Z film contradicted the Oswald lone gunman story they were already going with. The question was, what to do about it. Something had to be done, and quickly. Against all of this, in a weak attempt to imply that doing anything about the Z film was useless, you throw up the spector of many, unspecified films that also could have contradicted the Oswald story. What films are you talking about? What happened to them? In the last 60 years has any of them been used to sufficiently overturn the Oswald story? Why is that? It's true that some other things besides alter the Z film have been done to suppress alternative information. I presume you know the story of the Nix film, probably the next closest film to the Z film with important information. The Darnell and Wiegman films showing the immediate aftermath of the murder have been hidden by NBC for 60 years. The point is the Z film was a unique, immediate, and catastrophic danger to the Oswald story that weekend the powers running the coverup were already pushing. Doing something about that quickly became a priority. The record shows that other sources of alternative information have been dealt adequately to let them get away with the murder so far. Trying to alter the Z film then hiding it for 12 years when that failed was a priority decision the planners made. It has turned to be correct so far.

I'm going to skip over your phony explanation that the threads moved from the JFKA forum are still on "the forum" And your insulting question about whether I have bothered to read the "numerous explanations" from the mods about why various threads have been moved. The moves have been many and seem to be increasing; explanations have been few and decidedly unsatisfying. FYI, I have "bothered" to be involved in many of those discussions. Typically I raised the points about the policy as I have here. And have gotten no answers. Once again you did not answer my points. Your answers were that I'm begging the question, whatever that means. Followed by an assertion of something irrelevant. Apparently done with such dismissiveness to make the point you don't have to answer any questions about what the mods do. I think it's your job as a mod to answer members' questions. So I ask again. The criterion for removing a thread from the JFKA forum: shouldn't it be that thread is not relevant to or helpful for understanding the murder, regardless whether it also is relevant to other forums in the system? If you think such a thread also belongs in another forum in the system, why can't you paste it there while leaving the thread here? Is there a problem having the same thread in more than one forum?

This is the core of Jeremy's argument for why the planners of the JFKA had no reason to alter the Z film. Jeremy and I accept that multiple shooters were used to to murder JFK. I said they did that in order to try to maximize their chances that Kennedy would not escape. Above all else their top priority was to make sure they got Kennedy. Their lives were at stake if they failed. They planned to cover up their involvement and blame Oswald as a lone assassin. But that discrepancy between what actually happened and blaming Oswald as the lone shooter made a series of actions necessary to cover up their involvement. Snatching the body at Parkland so they could control the autopsy. Murdering their designated patsy, Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer. Organizing the WC so that it could be relied on to frame Oswald. The messages from the White House Situation to officials coming back to DC saying the murder had already been solved and Oswald did it alone. Jim Di added another element yesterday: the guy who on the day of the murder had prepared to give out full biographies of Oswald. And yes, altering the Z film that contradicted their lone gunman story. Jeremy says that's all wrong. The very use of multiple shooters established the planners' intent. They had planned to blame a conspiracy, just one, of course, not involving them. Therefore the Z film which showed the actual murder by multiple shooters was no problem. There was no need to alter it. But how to account for the fact that instead of claiming conspiracy, those running the coverup offered the Oswald lone assassin story right from the beginning? Which took center stage in the coverup right up to the Warren Report and beyond. The planners of the murder had no coverup plan, Jeremy says. That was implemented by a second, separate group. They were the ones who blamed Oswald for the murder. Let's stop here for a minute. It strains all credulity, all logic, to claim that professional killers like those that murdered JFK would have done so without a plan in place to save their skin and get way with it That they would have depended on someone else to do that. But we can set that aside. It turns out it doesn't matter in thinking about Z film alteration. As soon as some planners, whoever Jeremy imagines they were, decided to blame Oswald as the lone assassin, as we know was done, the discrepancy between that claim and what actually happened becomes real. The Z film showing that discrepancy becomes a problem. Jeremy's claim that here was no reason to be concerned or do anything about the Z film falls apart.

Lundahl worked for McCone, so there was no problem sending a copy of Brugioni's boards back to him. You recall Lundahl told Brugioni to lock the copy in his safe and let no one see it. At this point both McCone and Lundahl knew that the Zfilm and thus the boards made from it, contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with. There was every reason not to let others see them. At this point they hadn't tried alteration and didn't know the failure it was going to be. They quickly found that out. Twelve years later when a bootleg copy was shown on TV, Life's job of hiding the film from public view was over. They gave the fake original film backed to the Zapruder family for $1. Brugioni's boards were the last vestige of the actual original film. It was clear they had to be destroyed because the fake original was now available and eventually ended up at NARA. Of course that was true from the moment the film was altered. Brugioni's boards could have been destroyed any time after that.

I didn't see the thread. But it looks like it wasn't about Trump. You and others have a real problem turning so many threads into being about Trump or the red vs blue nonsense, when they have other important things to say. More important, William, here you are imposing your answer to the question posed --Oswald and Crooks are nothing alike, you say, and can teach us nothing--as a basis for removing the thread from this forum. And not allowing other opinions to be heard. I said *re*moving because as I just explained, this *is* censorship to everyone who doesn't follow it to politics. Which I don't, and no one is obliged to do. A new mod, huh. Then perhaps you, or one of the others, or all of you can get together and offer a consensus answer to the points I made earlier, which I have made several times before. *Shouldn't the test of whether a thread gets moved or stays be whether it is relevant to understanding the murder. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the answer a poster offers, if he does offer an answer? *Claiming a post is relevant to another forum is no basis for moving it there, if it is relevant here. Can't it be pasted to there while remaining here?

I agree with Gerry. Moving threads to forums like politics is a covert form of censorship to all the members except those who frequent that other forum. I suspect a lot of members don't go to the politics forum, myself included. Something is lost if the thread being moved has any relevance to understanding the murder. In previous discussions about moving, I suggested the criterion for moving a thread should be exactly that. Move a thread only if it lacks relevance. To no response by the mods. I also suggested that if they think a thread *also* belongs in, say, politics, paste it to there. But leave it here. Again no response. Can I now get a mod or two (how many are there, and who are they?) to now respond to the points I make here?

Brugioni initially made two copies of his boards using what he believed was the original Z film. Lundahl took them to brief McCone. One copy was returned Brugioni. Lundahl told Brugioni to put that copy in his safe and don't let anyone see it. In 1975 Brugioni told his then supervisor that he still had a copy of his boards in his safe. According to Brugioni the supervisor told him to get rid of them. Brugioni packed them up and sent them to the CIA director's office. That was the end of his boards, the last vestige of the original Z film.

This is the best you could do to counter the evidence that there was two sets of briefing boards done that weekend at NPIC? To be fair, you wrote this before reading my last post giving further information about how the sets of boards differed. It is not possible both worked on the same boards. The ones now at NARA that still exist. It wasn't a matter of Brugioni not "recognizing" that the boards in NARA as not his. They couldn't be, for a number of reasons. Particularly because his boards consisted of two panels connected by a hinge that you could open and close. The NARA boards consisted of four panels with no hinges. Your false claim that the only justification Brugioni gives for claiming two sets of boards is that he remembered putting frame numbers on his boards needs to be retracted. Your *speculation* that both were there that Saturday at NPIC working on the same boards, but never ran into each other because they did different things on different floors is just silly. Brugioni was there Saturday night for about 8 hours. McMahon for less time on Sunday. They had different stories about the couriers who brought the film to them. Brugioni said there were two, unnamed as far as I know. McMahon said there was only one, the comically named "Bill Smith" Each had different stories about how the frames were chosen for the boards they worked on. McMahon said "Smith" ignored his opinions about which frames to enlarge (he thought the film showed there were more than three shots) indicating he was involved in such decisions. "Smith" seemed interested in showing the three shot scenario if he could (does that sound like something a SS agent would do?). Brugioni makes no mention of the couriers being involved in such decisions about his boards. How could that be? The discrepancies between their stories are many; they don't permit your argument that they worked on the same boards. Looks like you're back to where you were days ago: casting doubt that Brugioni did any boards at all because we know McMahon's boards are at NARA.

Here is Horne's interview with Brugioni. It is still on YouTube despite what the message with my link said. It's surprising that you would have said some of the things you have in this thread, particularly about Brugioni's credibility, without first watching the interview. You are mistaken about some of the things you say. They are contradicted by Brugioni in his interviews by Horne and by Janney. Your recollection is faulty. As I said, Brugioni mentioned several things that showed the NARA boards were not done by him. Not just notations and maybe some different prints. Some of which I already mentioned. A few examples. The NARA boards consisted of four panels. Brugioni's boards were two panels hinged together. The NARA boards were accompanied by 6 pages of written notes. Brugioni said he didn't write them. In fact he said he didn't have time to do all that. He included a few notes with his boards just so McCone would have something to go with the boards. Brugioni was adamant that the NARA boards he hadn't known about were also done at NPIC because of the equipment NPIC had. In short. Brugioni's detailed account establishes that there were two separate boards done at NPIC. Unless he was lying about all that. But claiming he was misremembering a few details is a glaringly insufficient counter narrative. Not so. Brugioni said his then supervisor told him to get rid of the boards--Bugioni's exact words in describing the incident. He said the supervisor was madder than he had ever seen him when he found out Brugioni still had a copy of his boards in his safe. Brugioni packed up the boards and sent them to the director's office. What was the source of your false claim that Brugioni was not told to get rid of his boards? You mean Brugioni's boards? The CIA was lying, Tom. Did anyone ever see Brugioni's boards after that memo? Have you? If it was true that Brugioni's boards are still available, that of course would verify that in fact there were two sets of boards done that weekend--his and the ones in NARA. Isn't it obvious the fact that two sets of boards were done that weekend is something the CIA has wanted to hide all this time? Blatantly not so, as I have already said. I laid out a sample of things Brugioni said that would all have to be untrue to believe your story. You have ignored them so you can try to maintain your he-was-just-confused argument, which is crumbling all around you. You misunderstand the meaning of the word, data, similar to your confusion about what evidence is. It is not synonymous with the documentary evidence you keep trying to limit the analysis to. Data simply means information. Back to the dictionary. Data is "information, especially information organized for analysis or used as a basis for decision." To illustrate your mistake, you say: "Saying that the CIA had a better reason for using the Zapruder film than Life, and therefore they must have conspired with CD Jackson to obtain the original film is not data." But claiming the CIA had a more important reason for using the Z film than Life is more than just Information or data. It's an obvious fact. You are free to disagree. But you never do. Instead you try assert that that obvious fact is speculation "without supporting evidence" in order to try to exclude it from the what you think is legitimate analysis. What supporting evidence do I need to conclude the federal govt's need to find out who killed the president is more important, more compelling, than Life's desire to publish some stills from the film in its magazine? From that fact and the fact that the govt investigators preferred to use the original film for the briefing boards they had ordered, I drew the logical inference they would have made their preferences known to Jackson, a man the CIA had worked with for a couple of decades on national security matters, which the JFKA was thought to be at that time. They knew him well. They also knew Life had the original film they wanted to use. You're free to disagree with that inference as well. But it's nonsense to say it's all unsupported speculation. You may have evidence that a copy of the film was flown to NY that weekend. But was it the original? Your sentence about Jackson is garbled. Jackson and Life bought the original from Zapruder, not a copy. Two additional points for background: It was Brugioni who did the briefing boards used for the US's presentation about the Cuban missiles in front of the UN in 1962. Is there still any doubt that when Lundahl got the call on Saturday from McCone to do briefing boards, he asked Brugioni to do them? Here is Keven's answer to your questions about Brugioni doing briefing boards that Saturday, in case you missed it: "Brugioni told Janney that after he had retired, in the 1980's, the CIA enlisted him to write a history of NPIC in which he recounted his briefing board session and encounter with the Zapruder film. It was classified at the time of the Janney interview, and apparently remains classified to this day, as it would undoubtedly substantiate the 11/23/1963 first briefing board session that Zapruder film authenticity apologists like David Wrone and yourself have attempted to conflate with the second briefing board session of 11/24/1963, and also proves that the CIA has withheld information about the event from the Rockefeller Commission, the ARRB, and numerous FOIA requests. It also demonstrates the naivety of Zapruder film authenticity apologists like yourself in believing that the CIA is your friend, and is going to release evidence which documents the agency's nefarious activities involving the Zapruder film." Brugioni's NPIC history in which he discussed making briefing boards from the Z film is still classified by the CIA some 40 years later. Coupled with Brugioni's distinct affirmation that McMahon and Sands were not there with him--not, as you claim, confusion about whether they were--establishes the story, he came to realize, of two separate events that weekend at NPIC. Again, claiming he was misremembering some details is an insufficient counter narrative. Accepting that there nwere two sets of briefing boards made at NPIC creates a myriad of problems leading directly to your central assertion that the Z film was not altered and there was no reason to.