Roger Odisio

I want to go back over what happened to the Zapruder film the weekend of the murder in order to evaluate the likelihood, or even the plausibility, of Jeremy's claim that the film would not have been altered because destroying it was a better alternative. Spoiler alert: we know the planners of the murder had at least two chances that weekend to destroy rather than alter or hide the film, and they rejected that option each time. We shouldn't ignore the setting that weekend. It was a time of national trauma and uncertainty. Topped off by the murder of Oswald on Sunday, who authorities were already telling us was the lone assassin. Back in Philadelphia Salandria was telling his brother in law that if Oswald was murdered it would mean we were watching a government coup. So what to do about the Zapruder film that the planners knew contradicted their Oswald story? It was already becoming well known. Zapruder had been on TV the day of the murder explaining what he had filmed. He had watched the film several times to make sure it had captured the murder. Dan Rather, a local Dallas reporter at the time, got access and had described what he saw when he watched the film. Saturday morning Zapruder organized a bid for media organizations that wanted the right to bring the film to the public. A CBS rep was there but he could not get his people to bid beyond $10,000. Life mag blew them out of the water with a bid of $50,000, and that was just for the limited right to publish some stills from the film in their magazine. Life also agreed to return the original to Zapruder after a several days in exchange for a copy Zapruder had kept. For years the story had been told that Life then sent the film to its Chicago headquarters to begin work on it. That's not what happened. Instead the film was sent to the NPIC lab used by the intelligence services, for the purpose of making sets of briefing boards that could clearly show the planners the extent to which the film contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with. At that point, when the boards clearly showed the contradictions, the planners had to decide whether to try to eliminate or obscure the incriminating parts, or simply destroy the film. They rejected destruction in favor of trying alteration, with the knowledge that if that failed they could still try to bury the film from public view as long as possible until things blew over. Destroying the film would eliminate that option, and as we have seen hiding information is one thing the planners were are adept at. Life was fronting for the planners; they knew Life would do what they wanted. Instead of destroying it, the film was sent to the CIA's secret Hawkeye Works lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester, NY to try alterations. It became apparent, probably rather quickly, that the alterations they could make were not sufficient to eliminate or obscure all of the incriminating evidence. Note, however, that the alterations they ended up making meant that the original film was in fact destroyed. Just not in the sense Jeremy means. The original no longer existed; it was replaced by the altered film. A second set of briefing boards was made starting that weekend from the film returned from HW, and Bruginoi's boards, made from the original film, the last vestiges of the original, were later destroyed. Here was a second decision point for the planners, who were no doubt kept abreast of what was happening at HW. They could scrap the alteration idea as a failure and simply destroy the film. When that became public knowledge as it surely would have because the public was curious about the film, which Life's publication a few days later would surely stoke, they could blame the "accident" on another patsy, as Jeremy suggests. That would make two convenient patsies introduced in the first few days after the murder, one of which they had just murdered so he couldn't contradict their story. Once again they rejected the idea to destroy the film altogether. Life went back to Zapruder Sunday afternoon and cancelled the original deal. They gave Zapruder another $100,000 for the full rights to the film, including the right to show it in its entirety. They then buried it from public view, rejecting all requests to show it, for what turned out to be almost 12 years. When a bootleg copy of the film was shown on TV in 1975, Life's job of hiding it was finished. They sold the altered film back to Zapruder for $1. That establishes what Life's role was in the whole process. What does all of this mean? Reason, together with the actions taken that weekend by the planners, establish the logical basis for the claim that the Zapruder film was altered. It prevents gatekeepers from arguing the film was not, or could not, have been altered. It provides a basis to examine all of the specific alterations that have been alleged.

So you think the murder was planned and carried out without a companion plan to blame someone else, cover their tracks, and get away with it. How did the White House Situation Room, run by McGeorge Bundy, send a message to the two planes coming back to DC that afternoon that Oswald had been caught and acted alone. If Oswald as the patsy had not been the plan before the murder. Why did the same Mr. Bundy prepare a draft of the changes in JFK's Vietnam policy, which became NSM 273, the day *before* the murder, which final version was signed by Johnson the day after JFK was buried. Of course there were changes in the plans on the fly, as everything didn't go as expected. But murdering the POTUS was no ordinary street crime. There is no way in hell it happens without a plan in place to allow the murderers to get away with it.

Homer McMahon said that more work on the second set of boards was done after he left NPIC late Sunday evening. Some frames he had enlarged were missing from the final boards, now at NARA. Some frames he did not do were added. We don't know who did the extra work or when it was done. We know Life/CIA had the film. We also know from the results of the altering that the tools available were inadequate to completely change or obscure all of the incriminating details.

I am not going to waste my time responding to your ridiculously slanted accounting of the alternatives facing the killers. First, these are the actual alternatives. Faced with the difference between what the Zapruder showed compared to the Oswald story, should the killers have (1) first tried to alter Zapruder and *if that failed* bury the film while the MSM controlled information about the murder until the Oswald story has taken hold or (2) destroyed the film that weekend before too much was learned about it, since the destruction was final and easily explained away. By counterposing only alteration with destruction you distort the options. Burying the film from public view, as we know happened, was an option to folloow alteration if that failed. But obviously not if the film was destroyed instead. I asked what you thought happened at Hawkeye Works, if not film alteration, a question you have studiously avoided. But admittedly there is no answer to that. There are no records of what happened at that secret facility. But there are ways to get at that information based on things we do know. We know from both Brugioni and Homer McMahon the film was sent to HW that weekend. If the purpose was not alteration why was it sent there and then returned to NPIC the next day? If the film was returned from HW unaltered, why was a second set of briefing boards done? If there was some benign reason for that--if the boards were made from the same film--why were Brugioni's boards later destroyed so the only that second set remained. Brugioni was not only a renowned photo expert but he was the duty officer at NPIC that weekend. Why was he not told about the second set of boards until the subject was broached to him in 2009? I should point out that I started this thread in order to assess whether altering the film made logical sense in light of what we now know. In addition, there have been many discussions of specific film alterations that are also important. Imo, some of them further verify that changes were made in the film.

I had read Horne's response to Zavada, but couldn't find it when I looked the other day. I settled for including Jack White's concise summery of the disagreement. I don't know Jack White. In part I quoted him to see if Jeremy would respond with a personal attack rather than addressing what he said, as he had done with Horne, e. g.,-- you must ignore everything Person A says because he once said X, which I think is wrong. I was not disappointed. This kind of response is insidious to reasoned discussion, and too common around here.

You (deliberately) misunderstand my question. When I asked how your scenario was supposed to work, I of course meant as the best way for them to get away with the murder. That's what we're talking about. Your diversion into answering how would it physically work is a weak ploy. The decision to destroy rather than to first try to alter the film had to have been made that weekend. Zapruder had explained his film on national TV the day of the murder. Life bought limited rights to publish key frames in a few days. CBS also bid on those rights and Dan Rather had seen the film. The JFKA was no ordinary murder. The sense of anticipation about what the film showed was growing. Most importantly, we know the film was sent to Hawkeye Works early Sunday morning, after Brugioni's boards had clearly shown the extent to which the film deviated from their Oswald story. That was the place to alter the film and their best opportunity to do so. That was the latest time when the decision of whether to alter the film had to be made. You claim they passed on that chance, without explaining why the film was sent there in the first place or what they did do at HW, and that's the best evidence that the film was not altered. They could have destroyed the film instead, you say, and blamed it on some anonymous technician when people began questioning what happened to the film. So far we know Brugioni, McMahon and his crew, and, I say, someone at HW were the the persons who worked on the film that weekend. Which one do you mean? Or does the use of anonymous shield you from answering that question?

Thank you, Kevin, for that thorough recounting of what happened to the camera original Zapruder film that weekend. Since Life had the camera original once Zapruder relinquished it the day after the murder, your question for our friend Jeremy--when could it have been destroyed, instead of altered--is a good one. We know the opportunity to alter it at Hawkeye Works already existed when it was sent there from NPIC early Sunday, the next day. Why would they have destroyed the film instead of first trying to alter it is a question that hangs in the air without a reasonable answer. The film's existence was already well known and would become more so in the next few days when Life began publishing frames from it. Despite Jeremy's claims that destroying the film would have ended it as a problem for their Oswald story, It would have been monumentally stupid to do so. They chose better alternatives. Your question is also useful supplement to the ones I asked--who could have destroyed it and who would have been blamed had they done so, when the destruction came to light as it surely would have.

A couple of things I failed to mention yesterday. Not only did the CIA *not* choose to destroy the film without first trying to alter it, when the alterations failed they didn't destroy it then either. That is, they didn't destroy it in the sense of having no film (as Jeremy would have it), when the public, even the media sycophants, knew of its existence as a record of the murder. They substituted the altered film while destroying the original, but knew it could not stand on its own anymore than an actual autopsy could be allowed by Dr. Rose in Dallas. They had a better plan that didn't require destroying one of the most crucial bits of evidence in the case (they did destroy other, less critical bits). Their plan didn't require someone to destroy the film (a serious crime), or have on hand someone to blame when the destruction was discovered, as it surely would have been, even in the closed informational atmosphere they had created. I'll ask again: Jeremy how was that destruction you imagine as the best solution supposed to work? Who should have done it? Who was there to blame? The better plan was what the record shows they did. Murder Oswald to prevent having to prove he did it at trial (which they knew they couldn't do). Continue framing him with the WC. Control the flow of information spewed out by the MSM, which was then the dominant source of news. Have Life publish selected stills the next week (they can't show everything; it's too gruesome) mollifying the public and buttressing the Oswald story as much as possible. Bury the altered film from public view for what turned out to be 12 years, while most people moved on. A much wiser course, wouldn't you say? It seems to have worked pretty well, at least so far. One other thing. Hawkeye Works was not just a then secret CIA lab, of which Brugioni said "they could do anything" with films (he had visited there a couple of times). The very name, Hawkeye Works, was classified until 2010. One year after Peter Janney had interviewed Brugioni several times in 2009, and before Horne followed up the interviews in 2011. Before then, Horne had received a directive from the CIA he could not use the name of the lab in his research. It was Homer McMahon, not Brugioni, who said he was told by "SS agent Bill Smith" that the film he delivered that Sunday, from which briefing boards were to be made, came from Hawkeye Works. If work on the film was done there (which you haven't disputed as far as I can tell), who did it but the CIA? If not film alteration, what was done there? Life would show selected stills to the public

Exactly, Jeff. Kennedy was faced with the dual task of developing the withdrawal policy he wanted, while at the same time shielding himself, as much as he could, from the "soft on communism" charge he knew Goldwater had waiting for him. The policy of 263 was clear and that's what is important. Not thepolitical maneuvering. Johnson didn't believe in the policy, as he later told McNamara. He wanted to "win", not withdraw. That's the fundamental change in 273. Nevertheless for 273 kept in the language withdrawing 1,000 personnel by the end of '63, so he could pose as something of a peace candidate while painting Goldwater as a dangerous warmonger.

JB: Let's go through the various points that have been made: RO: I wish you had actually covered all of the important points. Instead you cherry pick the points you want to answer and ignore the rest. Which are often more important. JB: Claim 1 - The original Zapruder doesn't exist. Michael Crane writes: Notice the lack of evidence Michael produces to justify his assertion RO: If the original was altered, it was for the *purpose* of replacing the original!! The original would have been discarded. The evidence you are looking for is found in the claim of alteration!??!! JB: What we do have good evidence for is the claim that the original film does exist. It's in the National Archives. RO: Double WOW. There is a film at NARA and therefore it must be the original!!! I guess that settles it?/!! JB: Roland Zavada, in his reply to Douglas Horne, points out that if the Kodachrome film currently in the archives is a copy, it will contain certain features which are always generated by the process of copying one Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film. The copy will contain increased contrast, increased grain size, and colour distortion. According to Zavada and Prof. Raymond Fielding, who have examined that film, it contains none of these features. It has to be the original. Zavada was heavily involved in the creation of Kodachrome film when he worked for Kodak, and must know what he's talking about. Of course, we can't rule out the possibility that the lizard people got to him and made him an offer he couldn't refuse, or that the known laws of physics were miraculously suspended on the occasion Zavada inspected the film. But in the absence of any evidence that either of these things happened, the current state of play is that the Kodachrome film in the archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. Since the film in the archives is not a copy, all of the proposed alterations which required the film to have been copied, cannot have happened. Realistically, the only alteration that is still plausible is that the blob on the back of JFK's head was painted in. RO: Impeccable logic: Assert the film at NARA is the original and for that "reason" conclude it hasn't been altered. JB: If anyone wants to maintain that the blob was painted in, they should get hold of someone with the appropriate credentials, and inspect the film that is in the archives. Likewise, if anyone wants to claim that Zavada was mistaken and that the film is a copy, they should again get hold of an expert and inspect the film. Then let us know what the expert says. RO: You haven't noticed this has been done by film experts in California who concluded there were clumsy alterations? JB: Here's Zavada's reply to Horne. Please read it this time: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf RO: Your faith in Zapada to resolve all questions of authenticity is misplaced. You ignore the responses of not only Horne but others. For example, here is Jack White in 2010 at EF: "Zavada was a qualified expert on film manufacture and chemistry. HE WAS NOT AN EXPERT ON PHOTOGRAPHY NOR FILM CONTENT. He was hoodwinked into trying to be an expert on EVERYTHING, instead of a specialist. Compounding that error, his supporters mistakenly use his "findings" to support Z authenticity. All his study proved that the film was shot on Kodachrome, which was not in dispute." Claim 2 - Brugioni's 30-year-old or 40-year-old recollections were accurate. JB: Repeating the scenario which requires Brugioni's recollections to be accurate, does not support the claim that those recollections were accurate. Zavada's objections to Brugioni's claims still stand. It is an uncontroversial fact that people get stuff wrong when recalling events from decades earlier. RO: I asked if you claim Brugioni was lying about what happened with the film at NPIC, at least the parts he knew about, as well as what he saw when he watched the film. You sidestepped that question to assert a blanket response that "people get stuff wrong". Well, what did he get wrong? How about his recounting, which he repeated several times to Horne, that the head shot in the film he saw was quite different than now depicted in the extant Zapruder? It was more dramatic, the spray of bone and tissue was more white than pink, it shot higher in the air, and lasting longer. Specific enough? Or was he somehow mistaken that in the mid 70s he was ordered to destroy his boards, a copy of which he still had in his safe, when he let slip he still had a copy? Please specify, if you want to continue this line, while you explain what you think happened with the film that weekend: what was Brugioni mistaken about? Claim 3 - Life, or Time/Life, had links to the CIA. JB: I can't argue with that. But this demonstrates only that Life might have done what it did after consultation with the CIA. It's quite possible that the CIA prompted Life to do what actually happened: buy the film and keep it (more or less) locked away until 1975. RO: You think there was a "consultation" between the CIA and Life? Between equals? Life was fronting for the CIA and doing what they were told. Claim 4 - Life (or the CIA, or anyone else who controlled the film) would not have destroyed the film, because ... JB: Roger does not address the question I asked. He merely repeats his claim: RO: Yes I did explain why destruction that weekend was not the best or logical choice. It was in my original post, which is why I simply alluded to it in the answer you quote ("I've explained the logic"). This was the weekend of the murder and the killers were faced with an initial decision about Zapruder because they knew it contradicted their story. Destroy or alter the film? The record of what happened to the film that weekend shows they prudently chose to first try altering the film, knowing they next could bury the film while their story took hold, if their alterations didn't do the job. The facts show (unless you want to now challenge them) that was exactly the sequence that happened that weekend. Try alteration. When that failed, go back to Zapruder and buy the full film rights in order to bury the film for what turned out to be 12 years. 60 years later, that plan has worked pretty well hasn't it? I asked for your alternative explanation of that sequence and you have offered none. Nor answered the questions I posed. If the film was not altered, why were two sets of boards made, and the first set, made before the trip to HW, later destroyed ? Why was the film sent to the Hawkeye Works lab if not to alter it? Why did Life/CIA lie to conceal that the film went directing to the CIA's NPIC in DC after they gained limited rights to it? Btw, the source for the making of the second set of boards was not Brugioni--he didn't know about that--but Homer McMahon and crew. McMahon told Horne that "Bill Smith" a "SS agent" told him he brought the film from Hawkeye Works. It was "Bill Smith" who, this time, directed which frames to enlarge, despite McMahon's disagreement. (McMahon thought that the film he was given showed evidence of shot(s) from the front and more than three of them). The work on the boards continued after McMahon left early Monday morning. Some of the frames McMahon worked on are missing from the extant boards and others were added later. Besides vaguely trashing Brugioni, you're going to have to find a way to discredit McMahon and crew. That is, if you get around to explaining your view of what happened with the film that weekend The point is, far from ending the problem posed by Zapruder, destroying it that first weekend or soon after would more likely have blown up in their face. The CIA was smart enough to realize that. As I said, Zapruder was on national TV the day of the murder explaining what his film showed, There was a high level bidding war between CBS and Life/CIA over rights to show the film, (or as it turned out in Life's case, to not show it). It was quickly being recognized as the film record of the murder. Everyone knew that Life had the rights to the film. Or if they didn't that weekend, they would soon find out in a few days when Life began publishing exclusive stills from the film. The initial decision about what to do with that film had to be made soon after the murder as the world was watching. So how do you imagine your destruction scenario was supposed to work? Who exactly would destroy the film in Life's possession? CD Jackson? Henry Luce? Who would be blamed when the world found out that the film they were waiting to see, that clearly showed the murder, was destroyed? Your "solution" would have solved nothing. Instead it would have created a massive problem amidst the uncertainty of the first few days. Evil, yes, but the CIA wasn't dumb enough to fail to see that. The preceding also serves to answer your illogical ramblings about logic below. JB: There is no logic in: trying alteration; seeing that it doesn't work; deciding at that point not to destroy the film; retaining a film which contradicts the lone-nut story; and finally making that film available for public viewing. If you have control over a piece of physical evidence which seriously undermines your case, and the only way to be sure that this evidence would not become public is to destroy it, and if it is a simple task to destroy that piece of evidence, you would destroy it. Wouldn't you? Nor is it logical, in the hypothetical scenario I put forward (let's imagine that the film contained evidence of conspiracy that really could not be explained away), to do anything other than destroy the film. This would absolutely eliminate any possibility that the film could contradict the lone-nut story. The only cost would be public embarrassment. If Life (or whoever) understood that the film contained evidence that contradicted the lone-nut story, why would they not have destroyed the film? Please answer the question this time.

It's good to see the response of a genuine alteration denier. First, let's get rid of the notion that in this case Life was a separate entity, a profit maximizing corporation seeking to make a buck, while bringing the truth to the public. Life was part of the conservative Luce empire that had no use for Kennedy. As I said, CD Jackson, publisher of Life, was a long time CIA asset. Obviously the CIA couldn't bid against CBS to take control of the Zapruder film. Life was fronting for them and had access to the CIA's virtually unlimited funds.. Ultimately that weekend they paid Zapruder $150,000 for the full rights to the film, a lot of money at that time. But only after first paying him $50,000 for limited rights to publish some frames of the film in Life. They sent the film to the CIA's NPIC lab for briefing boards to be made to clarify what the film showed, (and lied about that for decades, claiming the film was sent directly to Life's headquarters to begin work on the frames to be published in their magazine). Then the film was sent early Sunday morning to the CIA's then secret Hawkeye Works to try altering the parts of the film that contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with. Only after that effort failed, did they go back to Zapruder that Sunday and give him another $100,000 with the intention of burying the film from public view as long as possible. If the original film got out to the public, or even the altered copy that failed to conceal what happened, it would likely kill their Oswald story before it ever got off the ground. This was coupled that weekend with the murder of Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer, so he couldn't contradict their story, so there would be no trial where they would have to defend their story. Your half-hearted attempt to discredit this account is a flat statement that it should not be taken seriously (why?), and besides, Doug Horne is known to have advocated such and such you believe to be false. That won't fly. To begin with, you have to at least address known facts We know briefing boards from the film were done that weekend; a set resides at NARA. The ones at NARA were done after the film was returned from Hawkeye Works. The earlier set done to determine how the film differed from their story were later destroyed. According to Brugioni, he was ordered to get rid of them a decade later when authorities started sniffing around the murder again. Is Brugioni lying about that? About anything he said? Everything? Were there two sets of boards done, and if so why if the film had not been altered? The story offered is that the boards were done for the information of the directors of the CIA and Secret Service. Do you believe that was their purpose? Did the film make the trip to Hawkeye Works once a set of boards clarified what the film showed? If so, for what purpose? What do you think was done there if not film altering? Was the film originally diverted to NPIC instead of going directly to Life headquarters as was the original story? If so, why would they lie about that? Answering those questions should be a decent start for you to explain what you claim happened instead of film altering. You can't get away with simply defaming Horne and apparently Brugioni. Let me answer the question you end with, which you characterize as the weakest part of my argument.. All of the "could have dones" you cite are in fact feasible. The killers had choices about how to deal with the problem of Zapruder contradicting their story. They logically (I've explained the logic) chose to first try alteration. When that failed, they chose to bury the film from public view until their Oswald story took hold. Giving the film back to Zapruder for $1 without ever having shown it, after a bootleg copy was shown on TV, confirms the purpose for which it was bought was indeed to bury it. A review of the actions that weekend and beyond confirms the choices they made.

KKL: I hate debate on the litany of specific "smoking guns." Some are facially nothingburgers, and I can't recall one that is truly a solid proof "smoking gun" in my view. That said, if you have one or two pieces of evidence that you find especially compelling in favor of Z-alteration I'll provide feedback. RO: I can find more than two pieces of evidence that compel a conclusion of alteration (some of them are clear alterations themselves), but the point of my original post was there is a compelling logic that drove the killers to try alteration, and what they did that weekend and thereafter shows that is what they did. KKL: As others have noted Z-alteration isn't necessary to prove conspiracy which is a mark against it. RO: No. That's just a fact that neither cuts for nor against alteration. KKL: You understate the implications of altering the Z-film in a way that could be exposed by other media. RO: I don't understate the implications of alteration Quite the opposite. They are very important. But in 60 years the major media have not even been interested in evaluating whether Zapruder was altered, let alone exposing it. KKL: I suggest there is a distinction among types of alteration that may matter. Editing by omission or obscuring can't be refuted easily by other media. Omission may range from removing a Z-frame or minimizing the brain splatter of the head shot in the Z-film (as described by Dino B.). Obscuring is a little less clean but we've all seen Whitehead's depiction of blackening of JFK's skull. It's good evidence, but it's not proof and definitely not proof of malign comprehensive Z-alteration. RO: There is evidence of all three things you mention and more you didn't. For example, where did that blob that appears on JFK's forehead in 313 come from? It is apparently designed to depict an exit wound. All footage of the turn on to Elm Street is missing from the extant Zapruder. Looking at all of them, I don't know why you say they are not evidence of "malign comprehensive alteration". Certainly the intent to distort evidence is malign isn't it? Certainly those who did the alterations intended the work to be comprehensive. KKL: while I'm open to substantive Z-alteration I'm skeptical because of: b) the early proliferation of the Z-film itself, RO: Bootleg copies of the film *after it had been altered*, shown to some people at parties, while Life was hiding the film, meant nothing, as history shows. KKL: c) the technical capacity in 1963 to make timely substantive alterations to the Z-film, RO: Yes. they were unable to obscure all of the incriminating evidence with the tools at hand. Which is why Life went back to Zapruder to pay full film rights and then hid the film for almost 12years as the Oswald story took hold. KKL: d) no clear and evident purpose in the alteration, RO: The purpose of the alteration couldn't be clearer: to eliminate or obscure evidence that would contradict their Oswald story. KKL: and e) nothing from other sources (witnesses and evidence) that absolutely proves the Z-film is wrong. RO: Evidence from other sources is not required to indicate or prove alteration. But there is some. One example: the voluminous testimony of witness that the limo slowed down or briefly stopped around the time of the fatal head shot(s). The extant Zapruder does not show that. But all of these details you focus on are icing. You haven't responded to the point of the original post. Which was: If you do not believe the Oswald lone assassin story, and therefore think there was more than 3 shots, or more than one shooter, or at least one shot came from the front that means the original Zapruder film, which captured the crime, contradicts the Oswald story. What is to be done about that? I argued the killers had no choice but to try alteration (see my original post). A careful examination of what they did with the film that weekend and thereafter clearly shows the opportunity for alteration. They did make changes but were not able to obscure what happened. Hiding the film from the public became the only option. There is both a logical case for alteration and clear reasons to believe that is what they did..

I'll drink to that, Sandy. But you may have noticed that nobody but Cohen has responded and he ignored the points I laid out. One reason I posted the message was to see if the people who assert there was no alteration or they are on the fence about it would challenge anything. I didn't even cover all of the specific issues that show alteration that have been discussed a lot. My point is if you don't believe Oswald did it, if you believe there was more than one shooter, or more than 3 shots, or shots from the front, and Oswald is the official story they were going with, how can you expect they wouldn't have tried to alter Zapruder, starting that weekend, to avoid the whole thing blowing up in their face. There is plenty of evidence that they did try alteration, as well as evidence of the alterations themselves.

Your oft-repeated assertion has been ignored because it is not useful. Zapruder is not just one of the films of the murder. As I said it immediately got national attention. Life featured it the next few issues. The family eventually got more the $15 million to give it up to NARA. The fatal head shot(s) happened right in front of Zapruder. It is considered a main record of the murder. Gayle Nix Jackson is right now in court trying to get the original film shot by her grandfather. If it verified the extant Zapruder, why is she having such trouble? I know she has been told the authorities don't know where it is. The killers knew the Zapruder film was a distinct problem that had to be dealt with that weekend. Kennedy was killed by multiple shooters. They were already trying to sell the Oswald-as-lone-assassin-from-behind story,which they had prepared before the murder. If the public could see the original Zapruder, their story would be dead before it ever got off the ground. Were they worried about a contradiction later? Not nearly as much. They distorted, lost, or destroyed lots of evidence. They controlled the flow of information to such an extent that 60years later they have got away with most of it. But the main reason your conjecture is not useful is because the question of alteration can and should be addressed directly, based on what we have learned. I offered facts and asked questions. It would be useful if you would start there with a comment.

If you don't believe the Oswald-as-the-lone-assassin story--if you think there were more than three shots, or more than one shooter, or at least one of the shots came from the front--it follows that the original Zapruder film showing those kind of things would contradict that Oswald story. It would expose the story as false. What is to be done by the WC in that case? We know the WC used certain methods to deal with evidence that contradicted their story: ignoring, destroying, losing, or altering it. But the original Zapruder film was a special problem. The first three ways wouldn't work with it. Zapruder shot his film from right in front of the fatal shots, clearly capturing the murder. That day he was on TV explaining what his film showed. Already there was a bidding war between at least Life mag and CBS for the rights to the film. Life won and had plans to feature some stills in its next couple of issues. The country was fixated on the murder that weekend. It was the crime of the century. It still is. The killers were left with only one feasible choice that weekend--alteration of the film to try to obscure what it showed so as to keep the story they were already going with from imploding. Why do you think the killers would not at least have tried that? Their actions the first weekend and beyond establish that they did try. When Life bought the limited rights to the film, we were told they sent it to their Chicago headquarters to begin work on photo layouts. That's not what happened. Instead Life immediately sent it to the NPIC, the CIA film lab in DC where key frames were enlarged and placed on briefing boards to get a clear picture of what the film showed. The killers of course knew Oswald didn't do it. They needed to find out how and to what extent the Zapruder film contradicted their story As that task was being finished early Sunday morning, the film was sent to the then secret CIA lab at Hawkeye Works in Rochester, NY. Why was it sent there? What do you think they were doing at Hawkeye Works if it wasn't film alteration? I asked that question of Robert Groden, an alteration denier, at the Duquesne U seminar in Nov., and he avoided the question by feigning like he misunderstood it. He mumbled something about how the film worked on by Brugioni was not the original. This is an important question to answer if you don't think the film was altered. The film was then sent back to the CIA lab in DC that Sunday evening where a second set of briefing boards was done by a different group, unbeknownst to the first group. Why a second set if the film had not been altered? Why was Dino Brugioni the CIA's primary photo analyst who had worked on the first set, not even told about the second set? Brugioni told Doug Horne that when the JFKA investigation was heating up again in the 70's he mentioned to his then supervisor that he still had one of his boards in his safe. The supervisor became agitated and ordered him the get rid of his board. He did. If both sets of boards were made from the same unaltered film, if no changes were made at Hawkeye Works, why was it necessary to destroy Brugioni's version? It's obvious that Brugioni's version contained things the CIA did not want the public to see. It follows that the films from which the two sets of boards were made were not the same. A simple example is the ridiculous depiction of the head shot(s) in the extant Zapruder that lasts for only one frame (1/18 of a second), shows a brief pink spray above JFK's head and a blob that sprouted on Kennedy's forehead. When interviewed by Doug Horne, Zapruder said he saw something very different: a mostly white spray (probably more tissue and bone than blood at impact) rising much higher in the air and lasting for several frames. That was so spectacular, it was something he could not forget, even when talking to Horne about it 48 years later. While the second set of boards was being worked on, Life went back to Zapruder and paid him more money for all rights to the film, including the right to show it in its entirety as a film. That's where you can get a true sense of what it showed, rather than from just selected slides But then Life buried it from public view for what became almost 12 years, refusing to show it. Why? They had to bury the film because, with the tools available at the time, they weren't able to completely obscure what it showed about what really happened. All those years the film was buried gave the WR story time to take root. When a bootleg copy of the film was shown on national TV in 1975, Life's job of hiding the film was over. They sold it back to Zapruder for $1. That shows what Life's role was. Paying for the film rights was not a money making investment for them, though they did sell extra magazines for a few weeks by publishing some of the frames from the film. They could have made a lot more by showing the film itself while the murder was fresh in people's minds. But they didn't want the public to see it. CD Jackson, Life's publisher, was a long time CIA asset. Life was part of the conservative, anti-JFK empire of Henry Luce. Life was fronting for the CIA throughout the process. Their judgement to hide the film was proved correct when we saw the gasps from Geraldo Rivera's audience when they saw the altered version of Zapruder, which led to a reopening of the case. Imagine what would have been the reaction had they seen the original film showing, for example, the actual head shot(s) without the blob appended to Kennedy's forehead. I could add discussion of the many examples of film distortions to flesh out the argument--like the fact that the turn on to Elm Street is entirely missing, even though Zapruder said once he started filming he never stopped until after the murder (correct me if I'm wrong about that statement). But I wanted to concentrate on whether the claim that the film was not altered can fit the facts as we know them today. The ball is in the court of the deniers and agnostics.

(1) through (5) could be true, or at least not clearly false, Michael, and it changes nothing important. The thing that Johnson wanted most, more than those things, was not to be seen as cutting and running from Vietnam, in the phrase of the day. That's made clear by the change in the purpose of the two memos, from preparing to leave in 263, to helping the South Vietnamese win the war in 273. Yes, Johnson knew heavy involvement in the war would threaten his War on Poverty. He had hoped the latter would be his legacy. He cared more about that than the war. But he got sucked into the Vietnam quagmire by the generals bit by bit. Johnson did not understand the close minded stupidity of the generals like Kennedy did. I could think of Johnson as a tragic figure living out his days in Texas if he wasn't so #%!!#&%# evil.

Thanks, Jeff. So Bundy wrote the first draft of 273 on Thursday Nov. 21 and , according to Prouty, on that day circulated it through the "highest levels of government", and in particular across the "senior layers of the national security apparatus". 273 went to McCone, the CIA Director, but not to McNamara, the Sec of Defense. Instead Bundy sent it to his brother William at Defense, with the expectation that he (William) would review it and discuss it with McNamara. As Sec of Defense McNamara should have been at the top of the list of the memo's addressees, since 273 was a marked change in the policy of 263. But Bundy knew McNamara had worked closely with Kennedy to establish 263 and agreed with the policy. Bundy did not want McNamara alerting Kennedy to what they were up to. And Kennedy would be dead the next day. 263 was a major policy decision by Kennedy and 273 fundamentally changed it. The very purpose of the future effort in Vietnam was changed from training the Vietnamese to takeover the war in the midst the US removing the bulk of its military forces by the end of 1965, to staying to help them "win" it. This was emphasized by any reference to the full pull out at the end of 1965 being removed in the 273 version. Johnson wanted these changes. He could use the removal of 1,000 personal by the end of '63 in his '64 campaign where he posed as the peace candidate and branded Goldwater as a dangerous war monger. 273 was Johnson's policy, written for Johnson, not Kennedy who would not have signed it. Which Johnson and Bundy knew. Prouty thinks Johnson got the 273 draft on Saturday Nov. 23. It wasn't something new to him. There was another draft the next day. Johnson signed the final version on Nov 26, 5 days after Bundy's first draft. That has to be the record for speed in developing a major policy in Washington, or any policy for that matter. Changing Vietnam policy was a major focus of those planning to murder Kennedy. They knew what they wanted to happen after they got rid of Kennedy. They were set up to quickly put their policy in place after the murder. What jumped out at me in your article, Jeff, was Prouty saying Johnson had not asked for the 273 draft (did he think Bundy wrote it on his own and it just happened to coincide with Johnson's preferred policy?) and that Johnson "had no expectation whatever of being President on Nov 21". Nobody's perfect.

Jeff, Do you have any information about to whom Bundy circulated his Nov 21 draft of 273? Is there a routing slip? A cover memo from Bundy?

Jim, See my message earlier yesterday in this thread setting out Salandria's unsuccessful search for the tape, most importantly including his analysis of what Bundy's was telling those on board of the planes coming back to Washington. Bundy was running the White House Situation room at the time, but as I recall someone else delivered the message to the planes. This was taken from Salandria's seminal "False Mystery" speech at the 1998 CAPA convention, which was accompanied by a similar effort by E Martin Schotz. Were you there? The messages played a pivotal role in Salandria's conclusion that Kennedy was murdered by the "top echelons" of his own government. More from Salandria's speech: the messages were "conclusive evidence of high level US government guilt. The first announcement of Oswald as the lone assassin, before there was any evidence against him, and while there was overwhelmingly convincing evidence of conspiracy, had come from the White House Situation Room. Only the assassins could have made that premature declaration that Oswald was the assassin. This announcement had been made while back in Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade was stating that 'preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved in the shooting...'" Salandria says that in his mesages to the planes Bundy was indirectly telling the passengers that "he was speaking for the killers".

In Salandria's words, Bundy was telling those coming back to DC on the planes, particularly those from the Kennedy administration, that JFK was killed by those "above and beyond punishment". That is, those at the center of power in Washington. That means Allen Dulles and Lyndon Johnson. Each with his own reasons for wanting Kennedy dead. In Johnson's case, he had the fate of the killers in his hands, were he innocent and want to investigate. That means the murder would not have happened without the involvement of each. You can fill out the rest of the roster as you wish.

Don't go overboard with Bundy and leave out Johnson, Sandy. Salandria characterized Bundy as a war hawk in service to the warfare state and establishment elites. But he was working for Johnson after the murder. Johnson was calling the shots. Johnson lusted after the presidency his whole life and was not about to let it go up in smoke because of a war with the SU. That was not just something he used to bully Warren on to the WC.