Bill Miller Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 I seem to recall hearing that Jim Garrison had copies of the Zapruder film and had sent them out to people around the time of the Clay Shaw trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 I seem to recall hearing that Jim Garrison had copies of the Zapruder film and had sent them out to people around the time of the Clay Shaw trial. Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 (edited) I seem to recall hearing that Jim Garrison had copies of the Zapruder film and had sent them out to people around the time of the Clay Shaw trial. Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out. BK According to Penn Jones, Garrison let him know that the copy of the film would be left in a certain place overnight and nobody would miss it if someone "borrowed" it and had copies made and got it back the next day. Penn took the hint, took the film, and the rest is history. Jack Edited July 24, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out. BK That's right, Bill. Garrison got a copy and then had copies made and then handed them out to people, thus the snow-ball effect was set in motion. As I understand it, the Shaw trial was in 1969 and Garrison had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out. BK That's right, Bill. Garrison got a copy and then had copies made and then handed them out to people, thus the snow-ball effect was set in motion. As I understand it, the Shaw trial was in 1969 and Garrison had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film. Garrison was "handing" Z-film copies out? You do have a cite for that, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out. BK That's right, Bill. Garrison got a copy and then had copies made and then handed them out to people, thus the snow-ball effect was set in motion. As I understand it, the Shaw trial was in 1969 and Garrison had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film. Garrison was "handing" Z-film copies out? You do have a cite for that, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sting One might do well by themself were they to review the above. Those in New Orleans have been "lifting" items from unsuspecting persons for many, many years. The beauty of this one (The Garrison/Clay Shaw Trial) is that most are of the opinion that it had something to do with JFK's assassin. http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw2.html Q: Mr. Zapruder, do you have in your possession at this present time a copy of this film? A: Yes, I do. Q: May I have it, sir? A: Yes. MR. OSER: If the Court please, the State will mark the envelope containing a roll of film as S-37 for purposes of identification. ================================= http://www.jfk-online.com/orthshaw.html Q: Mr. Orth, just tell us what you did. A: I made black and white prints and I made color prints and color slides. Q: Now, from what film or films were these made? A: From the original Zapruder film. Q: I see. Did you copy the entire film or did you make prints of the entire film or only portions of it? A: Only portions. Q: And what portions of this film did you reproduce in black and white prints? THE WITNESS: The black and white prints were made many years ago, only for editorial use; the color prints were made recently. BY MR. ALFORD: Q: I see. And what portions of the film do the black and white prints purport to cover, sir? Q: How many black and white prints do you have, sir, in your possession? A: I have none, only color prints with me. Q: About 21 or 22 8 x 10 color photographs. Q: Do you have them in your possession at this time? A: Yes, I have, in my brief case. Q: Would you please take them out, sir. A: Certainly (producing photographs). Q: How many of these photographs are there, sir? A: I believe there are either 21 or 22. Q: Would you count them, please. A: Yes. (Counting) Twenty-one. Q: And what do they represent? A: They represent the frame numbers corresponding to the original 8-millimeter movie film. Q: Thank you, sir. A: You are welcome. MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, in accordance with the subpoena duces tecum I would like the record to presently reflect that these photographs have been turned over to the Court. BY MR. ALFORD: Q: Mr. Orth, do you have any slides in your possession at this time? A: Yes, I do. Q: Would you please take those out. A: Yes, sir (producing slides). Q: How many such slides do you have in your possession, Mr. Orth? A: From frame 200 to frame 320, so that would be 120 slides. Q: I see. And were these slides processed either by you personally or under your supervision? A: Yes, they were. (Slides exhibited to Mr. Dymond.) A: Well, again they represent the actual frame numbers to correspond with the original 8-millimeter movie film. MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, at this time in accordance with the subpoena duces tecum I wish to present to the Court 120 slides from the Zapruder film, sir. THE COURT: Mr. Alcock, you have not given these an identifying number for an exhibit. Would you like the next number we have, merely for identification purposes? It would be S-53, the next State exhibit number. For the record, I think we should identify -- at least for identification purposes at this time we should identify what these are. MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. It is merely our intent at this time to make the return on the subpoena duces tecum, and, if it please the Court, at a later time we will number these items to be admitted in evidence. THE COURT: I would suggest you number them now. Make them S-53 for the photographs for identification purposes -- MR. ALFORD: Very well. THE COURT: And S-54 for the slides, for identification purposes -- THE COURT: Do you have any further need of this gentleman? MR. ALFORD: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. (Witness excused.) MR. OSER: Your Honor, if the Court please, may I request that besides Mr. Orth being excused from the subpoena, also Time Incorporated be excused from the subpoena? THE COURT: You are excused from the subpoena. ========================================= http://www.jfk-online.com/westshaw.html Q: Did you have occasion during the course of your duties to survey and draw a survey plat for the Federal Bureau of Investigation relative to Dealey Plaza? A: Yes, sir. Q: Do you see that survey or reproduction of it in court today? A: I think it is on the easel over there on the left. Q: Is this survey drawn to scale, and if so, what scale? A: Yes, sir. The scale is noted on the plat. The large portion of the map is drawn to the scale of one inch equal to twenty feet. The other portion, which has to do with vertical control -- A: This is what was required by an FBI agent. This is what he instructed me to survey and to plat. Q: When was this plat made, if you know? A: I can't see the date. It is on the map there. Q: Is there a date on the plat? A: Yes, sir. Q: Would you please step down and walk over to the plat? A: April 31, 1964. Q: Is your name on the plat? A: My name is printed on the map and also my signature is on the map. Q: Are there any seals on the plat? A: There is a seal of the Public Surveyor's Office. Q: Was this seal placed on the plat by you? A: Yes, sir. ============================================================ 1. Last original copy of the Z-film (not in the possession of the FBI/SS/WC) now in possession of Garrison. 2. Original prints and slides made by Time/Life now in possession of Garrison. 3. Assassination Survey Plat now in possession of Garrison. Although I can not state as fact that I have never been "conned" out of a few bucks by the old "B"-Girl strippers of the French Quarter, I at least was mostly aware that I was being conned! In that regards, one must pay extremely "High Compliments" to Garrison & Company! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 (edited) Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out. BK That's right, Bill. Garrison got a copy and then had copies made and then handed them out to people, thus the snow-ball effect was set in motion. As I understand it, the Shaw trial was in 1969 and Garrison had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film. Garrison was "handing" Z-film copies out? You do have a cite for that, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sting One might do well by themself were they to review the above. Those in New Orleans have been "lifting" items from unsuspecting persons for many, many years. The beauty of this one (The Garrison/Clay Shaw Trial) is that most are of the opinion that it had something to do with JFK's assassin. http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw2.html Q: Mr. Zapruder, do you have in your possession at this present time a copy of this film? A: Yes, I do. Q: May I have it, sir? A: Yes. MR. OSER: If the Court please, the State will mark the envelope containing a roll of film as S-37 for purposes of identification. ================================= http://www.jfk-online.com/orthshaw.html Q: Mr. Orth, just tell us what you did. A: I made black and white prints and I made color prints and color slides. Q: Now, from what film or films were these made? A: From the original Zapruder film. Q: I see. Did you copy the entire film or did you make prints of the entire film or only portions of it? A: Only portions. Q: And what portions of this film did you reproduce in black and white prints? THE WITNESS: The black and white prints were made many years ago, only for editorial use; the color prints were made recently. BY MR. ALFORD: Q: I see. And what portions of the film do the black and white prints purport to cover, sir? Q: How many black and white prints do you have, sir, in your possession? A: I have none, only color prints with me. Q: About 21 or 22 8 x 10 color photographs. Q: Do you have them in your possession at this time? A: Yes, I have, in my brief case. Q: Would you please take them out, sir. A: Certainly (producing photographs). Q: How many of these photographs are there, sir? A: I believe there are either 21 or 22. Q: Would you count them, please. A: Yes. (Counting) Twenty-one. Q: And what do they represent? A: They represent the frame numbers corresponding to the original 8-millimeter movie film. Q: Thank you, sir. A: You are welcome. MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, in accordance with the subpoena duces tecum I would like the record to presently reflect that these photographs have been turned over to the Court. BY MR. ALFORD: Q: Mr. Orth, do you have any slides in your possession at this time? A: Yes, I do. Q: Would you please take those out. A: Yes, sir (producing slides). Q: How many such slides do you have in your possession, Mr. Orth? A: From frame 200 to frame 320, so that would be 120 slides. Q: I see. And were these slides processed either by you personally or under your supervision? A: Yes, they were. (Slides exhibited to Mr. Dymond.) A: Well, again they represent the actual frame numbers to correspond with the original 8-millimeter movie film. MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, at this time in accordance with the subpoena duces tecum I wish to present to the Court 120 slides from the Zapruder film, sir. THE COURT: Mr. Alcock, you have not given these an identifying number for an exhibit. Would you like the next number we have, merely for identification purposes? It would be S-53, the next State exhibit number. For the record, I think we should identify -- at least for identification purposes at this time we should identify what these are. MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. It is merely our intent at this time to make the return on the subpoena duces tecum, and, if it please the Court, at a later time we will number these items to be admitted in evidence. THE COURT: I would suggest you number them now. Make them S-53 for the photographs for identification purposes -- MR. ALFORD: Very well. THE COURT: And S-54 for the slides, for identification purposes -- THE COURT: Do you have any further need of this gentleman? MR. ALFORD: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. (Witness excused.) MR. OSER: Your Honor, if the Court please, may I request that besides Mr. Orth being excused from the subpoena, also Time Incorporated be excused from the subpoena? THE COURT: You are excused from the subpoena. ========================================= http://www.jfk-online.com/westshaw.html Q: Did you have occasion during the course of your duties to survey and draw a survey plat for the Federal Bureau of Investigation relative to Dealey Plaza? A: Yes, sir. Q: Do you see that survey or reproduction of it in court today? A: I think it is on the easel over there on the left. Q: Is this survey drawn to scale, and if so, what scale? A: Yes, sir. The scale is noted on the plat. The large portion of the map is drawn to the scale of one inch equal to twenty feet. The other portion, which has to do with vertical control -- A: This is what was required by an FBI agent. This is what he instructed me to survey and to plat. Q: When was this plat made, if you know? A: I can't see the date. It is on the map there. Q: Is there a date on the plat? A: Yes, sir. Q: Would you please step down and walk over to the plat? A: April 31, 1964. Q: Is your name on the plat? A: My name is printed on the map and also my signature is on the map. Q: Are there any seals on the plat? A: There is a seal of the Public Surveyor's Office. Q: Was this seal placed on the plat by you? A: Yes, sir. ============================================================ 1. Last original copy of the Z-film (not in the possession of the FBI/SS/WC) now in possession of Garrison. 2. Original prints and slides made by Time/Life now in possession of Garrison. 3. Assassination Survey Plat now in possession of Garrison. Although I can not state as fact that I have never been "conned" out of a few bucks by the old "B"-Girl strippers of the French Quarter, I at least was mostly aware that I was being conned! In that regards, one must pay extremely "High Compliments" to Garrison & Company! http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw2.html based on the above testimony how can ANYONE be sure Zapruder knew where ANY of the Z-film went (alleged in-camera original and Jamieson copies). Dallas Police Intelligence folks got a copy? What's that all about? Unless there was 4 double 8mm-un-split (16mm) copies struck of the alleged in-camera original.... And the Lone Nutters want to brand Garrison with he, Garrison was handing out Z-film copies? Come on.... Edited July 24, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted July 24, 2008 Author Share Posted July 24, 2008 http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,640196299,00.html New anchors can't compare with Cronkite By Chris Hicks, Deseret Morning News Published: July 21, 2006 The lead story on this page today about Walter Cronkite brought back a flood of memories to me.Cronkite was the big brother, the father figure, the witness reporter who, during my younger days, told us about some of the biggest news events of the late 20th century. He had been anchoring the "CBS Evening News" for more than a year, and I had watched him many times, but he didn't really enter my consciousness until that day in November 1963 that no baby boomer will ever forget. I was a sophomore in high school, sitting in class, when the crackly intercom interrupted the teachers in the middle of their lessons to announce that President Kennedy had been shot. School was dismissed and I walked home, thinking about how my parents had talked about Kennedy a lot, about how he was a Catholic just like us, and all the good things they saw in him for the future of our country. Some of those things would be deflated in subsequent years, but right now, Kennedy was a fallen saint, and in our house — as with most of the country — there would be mourning. And much of it would take place around the TV set. When I got home, I found my mother watching television — most unusual in the middle of the day. She was also teary-eyed, even more unusual any time of day. On that small black-and-white screen was an unending newscast about the assassination of our 35th president. And over the next several days it became a communal event; people all over the country were glued to their TVs, watching in disbelief as the Zapruder film was shown over and over, and then seeing all those connecting events: President Johnson being sworn in, Ruby shooting Oswald, the pageantry of the funeral. . . . And there in the midst of it all was Walter Cronkite, telling us about each event as it unfolded. He was distinguished, assertive, somewhat paternal, and occasionally with a choke in his throat that told us it was OK to be sad, even to cry if we felt like it. And we did. It's become a cliche to say you remember where you were when Kennedy was shot. But I also remember where I was when Robert Kennedy was shot. And when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. And during all those reports about the Vietnam War and Watergate. And Cronkite was there, too. He's been off the nightly news for 2 1/2 decades now, but he's still been around, doing stories, hosting documentaries, writing memoirs — and even showing up with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir one year! He's the favorite uncle who lives out of town but drops in to visit. And I'll be watching when PBS's "American Masters" airs a profile of Cronkite on Ch. 7 next week. How could I miss it? It'll be like watching home movies. Some of this has to do with his tenure as the ultimate news figurehead. And some has to do with the way TV news has changed. There's so much happy talk, melodramatic background music and cheesy celebrity "news" that it's hard to take it seriously. Cronkite could occasionally lose his objectivity — but would he interview Britney Spears for a prime-time newsmagazine or dress in drag for a Halloween show or engage in inane chitchat with a 20-year-old giggly anchor who looks like a runway model? Walter Cronkite was "the most trusted man in America." And he may be the last of a dying breed. I emailed Chris Hicks and asked him where in the US he lived in November 1963. LA, came the reply. No connection, surely, then, with Mark Lane's experience of viewing the first version of the Z film in New York? One possibility. In June 1963, Times Mirror sold its LA television station, KTTV, to the Metromedia group: The latter also owned WNEW-TV in New York. A suitably sized sample of recollections of the kind offered by Chris Hicks would, of course, form the basis for establishing whether or not memories of seeing the Z film in 1963 come in geographical clusters; and, if they did, mapping the clusters against, for example, Metromedia-owned stations across the country. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out. BK That's right, Bill. Garrison got a copy and then had copies made and then handed them out to people, thus the snow-ball effect was set in motion. As I understand it, the Shaw trial was in 1969 and Garrison had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film. Garrison was "handing" Z-film copies out? You do have a cite for that, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sting One might do well by themself were they to review the above. Those in New Orleans have been "lifting" items from unsuspecting persons for many, many years. The beauty of this one (The Garrison/Clay Shaw Trial) is that most are of the opinion that it had something to do with JFK's assassin. http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw2.html Q: Mr. Zapruder, do you have in your possession at this present time a copy of this film? A: Yes, I do. Q: May I have it, sir? A: Yes. MR. OSER: If the Court please, the State will mark the envelope containing a roll of film as S-37 for purposes of identification. ================================= http://www.jfk-online.com/orthshaw.html Q: Mr. Orth, just tell us what you did. A: I made black and white prints and I made color prints and color slides. Q: Now, from what film or films were these made? A: From the original Zapruder film. Q: I see. Did you copy the entire film or did you make prints of the entire film or only portions of it? A: Only portions. Q: And what portions of this film did you reproduce in black and white prints? THE WITNESS: The black and white prints were made many years ago, only for editorial use; the color prints were made recently. BY MR. ALFORD: Q: I see. And what portions of the film do the black and white prints purport to cover, sir? Q: How many black and white prints do you have, sir, in your possession? A: I have none, only color prints with me. Q: About 21 or 22 8 x 10 color photographs. Q: Do you have them in your possession at this time? A: Yes, I have, in my brief case. Q: Would you please take them out, sir. A: Certainly (producing photographs). Q: How many of these photographs are there, sir? A: I believe there are either 21 or 22. Q: Would you count them, please. A: Yes. (Counting) Twenty-one. Q: And what do they represent? A: They represent the frame numbers corresponding to the original 8-millimeter movie film. Q: Thank you, sir. A: You are welcome. MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, in accordance with the subpoena duces tecum I would like the record to presently reflect that these photographs have been turned over to the Court. BY MR. ALFORD: Q: Mr. Orth, do you have any slides in your possession at this time? A: Yes, I do. Q: Would you please take those out. A: Yes, sir (producing slides). Q: How many such slides do you have in your possession, Mr. Orth? A: From frame 200 to frame 320, so that would be 120 slides. Q: I see. And were these slides processed either by you personally or under your supervision? A: Yes, they were. (Slides exhibited to Mr. Dymond.) A: Well, again they represent the actual frame numbers to correspond with the original 8-millimeter movie film. MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, at this time in accordance with the subpoena duces tecum I wish to present to the Court 120 slides from the Zapruder film, sir. THE COURT: Mr. Alcock, you have not given these an identifying number for an exhibit. Would you like the next number we have, merely for identification purposes? It would be S-53, the next State exhibit number. For the record, I think we should identify -- at least for identification purposes at this time we should identify what these are. MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. It is merely our intent at this time to make the return on the subpoena duces tecum, and, if it please the Court, at a later time we will number these items to be admitted in evidence. THE COURT: I would suggest you number them now. Make them S-53 for the photographs for identification purposes -- MR. ALFORD: Very well. THE COURT: And S-54 for the slides, for identification purposes -- THE COURT: Do you have any further need of this gentleman? MR. ALFORD: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. (Witness excused.) MR. OSER: Your Honor, if the Court please, may I request that besides Mr. Orth being excused from the subpoena, also Time Incorporated be excused from the subpoena? THE COURT: You are excused from the subpoena. ========================================= http://www.jfk-online.com/westshaw.html Q: Did you have occasion during the course of your duties to survey and draw a survey plat for the Federal Bureau of Investigation relative to Dealey Plaza? A: Yes, sir. Q: Do you see that survey or reproduction of it in court today? A: I think it is on the easel over there on the left. Q: Is this survey drawn to scale, and if so, what scale? A: Yes, sir. The scale is noted on the plat. The large portion of the map is drawn to the scale of one inch equal to twenty feet. The other portion, which has to do with vertical control -- A: This is what was required by an FBI agent. This is what he instructed me to survey and to plat. Q: When was this plat made, if you know? A: I can't see the date. It is on the map there. Q: Is there a date on the plat? A: Yes, sir. Q: Would you please step down and walk over to the plat? A: April 31, 1964. Q: Is your name on the plat? A: My name is printed on the map and also my signature is on the map. Q: Are there any seals on the plat? A: There is a seal of the Public Surveyor's Office. Q: Was this seal placed on the plat by you? A: Yes, sir. ============================================================ 1. Last original copy of the Z-film (not in the possession of the FBI/SS/WC) now in possession of Garrison. 2. Original prints and slides made by Time/Life now in possession of Garrison. 3. Assassination Survey Plat now in possession of Garrison. Although I can not state as fact that I have never been "conned" out of a few bucks by the old "B"-Girl strippers of the French Quarter, I at least was mostly aware that I was being conned! In that regards, one must pay extremely "High Compliments" to Garrison & Company! http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw2.html based on the above testimony how can ANYONE be sure Zapruder knew where ANY of the Z-film went (alleged in-camera original and Jamieson copies). Dallas Police Intelligence folks got a copy? What's that all about? Unless there was 4 double 8mm-un-split (16mm) copies struck of the alleged in-camera original.... And the Lone Nutters want to brand Garrison with he, Garrison was handing out Z-film copies? Come on.... Gotta love anyone who can pull off BS such as this (pull the wool over eyes) and get away with it for this many years while the search goes on for mythological creatures. One might, if they look diligently, find similarities to admission of WC Evidence. http://www.jfk-online.com/fraziershaw.html MR. OSER: The State wishes to introduce and file into evidence that which has been marked for identification as S-34, the aerial photograph taken of Dealey Plaza. The State also wishes to offer into evidence S-35, the plat drawn by Mr. West, and S-36, the markup of this area of Dealey Plaza. MR. DYMOND: To all of which offerings we object on the ground of relevancy, and additionally with regard to S-35 we object on the ground it contains matter which is hearsay, not being the product of mind or memory of the author. (WHEREUPON, State Exhibits 34, 35 and 36, having been previously identified, were received into evidence.) MR. DYMOND: To which ruling we reserve a bill of exception making the exhibits State-34, 35 and 36, the Defense objection to them, together with the reasons for the objection, the ruling of the Court and all testimony up to this time part of the bill. http://www.jfk-online.com/shaneyfeltshaw.html Q: I now direct your attention to "State Exhibit No. 35," a large plaque over here, and I ask if you can identify what is depicted on this particular plaque. You may step down, sir. Q: Would that plaque purport to be a certain portion of Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas? A: Yes. http://www.jfk-online.com/westshaw.html Q: Did you have occasion during the course of your duties to survey and draw a survey plat for the Federal Bureau of Investigation relative to Dealey Plaza? A: Yes, sir. Q: Do you see that survey or reproduction of it in court today? A: I think it is on the easel over there on the left. Q: Is this survey drawn to scale, and if so, what scale? A: Yes, sir. The scale is noted on the plat. The large portion of the map is drawn to the scale of one inch equal to twenty feet. The other portion, which has to do with vertical control -- A: This is what was required by an FBI agent. This is what he instructed me to survey and to plat. Q: When was this plat made, if you know? A: I can't see the date. It is on the map there. Q: Is there a date on the plat? A: Yes, sir. Q: Would you please step down and walk over to the plat? A: April 31, 1964. Q: Is your name on the plat? A: My name is printed on the map and also my signature is on the map. Q: Are there any seals on the plat? A: There is a seal of the Public Surveyor's Office. Q: Was this seal placed on the plat by you? A: Yes, sir. ================================================================================ Those South Korean "slicky boys" could learn a lot from the likes of Specter & Company, as well as Garrison & Gang! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out. BK That's right, Bill. Garrison got a copy and then had copies made and then handed them out to people, thus the snow-ball effect was set in motion. As I understand it, the Shaw trial was in 1969 and Garrison had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film. Garrison was "handing" Z-film copies out? You do have a cite for that, right? POSTED THIS FOR BILL MILLER--(having a technical problem) David, do you mean aside from what Jack posted in response #185 ... And aside from I believe Weisberg once telling me about Garrison having bootlegs made - here is a cite from 'Zapruder Film - Famous Pictures Magazine' ........ "After the Warren Commission finished its report, footage and slides were entered into the National archives. Requests to get LIFE to release footage by private researchers and other media outlets are denied. It wasn’t until 1969 that Jim Garrison subpoenaed LIFE for his trial of Clay Shaw (later made famous in the movie, JFK) that the public saw the movie. Lax security at the trial allowed the film to be copied and bootleg’s started to circulate around the country. At the same trial Zapruder is called to testify, the next year on Aug 30, 1970 Abraham Zapruder died of carcinoma in Dallas." Another source that a simple 'GOOGLE' search provided ... http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Zapruder_film The Zapruder film is the 8mm home movie footage shot by Abraham Zapruder in Dallas, Texas, within Dealey Plaza while standing next to the grassy knoll during the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. It is the definitive, most authoritative film of the assassination. Contents [hide] * 1 Background * 2 History * 3 External links * 4 Copyright Background Zapruder filmed the scene with a Director Series Model 414 PD movie camera via a spring-wound mechanism at an average tested speed of 18.3 frames-per-second. The entire Dealey Plaza exposed film frames lasts 26.6 seconds, with the presidential assassination sequence occupying 19.3 seconds. There are 486 frames altogether. The film has been used by the Warren Commission and all subsequent investigations of the assassination. The Zapruder frames used by the Commission consist of exhibits 889-899 plus exhibits 901 and 902 (totaling less than 1 second of the actual 26.6 second film), published in the commission supporting volume XVIII. Frames of the film have also been sporadically published in several magazines, and the film was featured in several movies. The Zapruder film footage has been deemed "culturally significant" by the United States Library of Congress and was selected for permanent preservation in the National Film Registry. Some conspiracy theorists claim that only altered versions of the Zapruder film have ever been published. They point to allegedly impossible movements by persons in the background and limousine and irregular limousine signal-light flashing as evidence of film editing. Director Oliver Stone examined the Zapruder film and has publicly stated that, in his opinion as a professional filmmaker, the Zapruder film was not altered in any substantive way. Two other publicly released films of the Kennedy assassination (the Bronson and Nix films) show none of the supposed "anomalies" claimed to exist by conspiracy theorists, and neither show any evidence of tampering. Eyewitness reports of the limousine "slowing down" at the time of the assassination appear to be a result of the witnesses' shock at having seen the murder, and allegedly impossible movements can be explained by the limitations of the camera. There are in fact no anomalies in the film that cannot be easily explained by the limitations of the technology, movement of the camera, or other simple factors. Abraham Zapruder's Bell & Howell Zoomatic movie camera, in the collection of the US National Archives Zapruder's film is probably the most complete and best-known movie of the assassination, as it provides a relatively clear view of the motocade from a slightly elevated position. However, it is not the only film that captured at least the few seconds just before President Kennedy was struck by bullets. There were at least seven others in Dealy Plaza with home-movie cameras— F. Mark Bell, Charles Bronson (not the actor with the same name), Robert J. Hughes, John Martin, Charles Mentesana, Patsy Paschall, Elsie Dorman, Tina Towner, Marie Muchmore, and Orville Nix, along with an unidentified "Babushka Lady". Nix's, Muchmore's, and Bronson's films include the fatal shot, and the films of Bronson and Hughes show the 6th-floor window of the book depository. [1]. History Three copies of the film were made on the evening of November 22 for investigative authorities. Within days, LIFE magazine purchased the original film and all rights to it for $150,000 ($916,000 in 2006), payable in six annual payments of $25,000. Zapruder donated the initial payment of $25,000 to the widow and children of murdered Dallas Policeman J.D. Tippit. After acquiring the film, LIFE Bureau Head Will Lang Jr. ordered the creation of large photo prints of the individual frames for a special article on the film and the Warren Commission report. At some stage during the photo processing, several film frames were accidentally damaged — though private copies were made for LIFE executives. A few frames of the film have been printed over the years, but generally the film was kept locked away from public scrutiny and was never publicly shown in motion by LIFE. CBS Dallas bureau chief Dan Rather was one of the few persons in the world privileged to see the Abraham Zapruder film that Saturday morning, November 23. In his narration of the film as part of CBS nationwide television coverage, Rather said the President's head "went forward with considerable violence." This narration confirmed the so-called "Oswald position" for the nation, but he said nothing about the violent backward motion of the President's head which would have strongly suggested to conspiracy theorists a second gunman at that early date. Rather apologized later in 1970s when Zapruder film became public by saying it was "an honest error." In 1966 Dr. Josiah Thompson, while working for LIFE, tried to negotiate with LIFE for the rights to print important individual frames in a book he wrote called Six Seconds in Dallas. LIFE refused to approve the use of any of the frames, even after Thompson offered to give all profits from the book sales to LIFE. When Thompson's published book included very photo-like detailed charcoal drawings of important individual frames, LIFE filed a lawsuit against Thompson and his publishing company. Prior to the 1969 trial of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw for conspiracy in connection with the assassination, a copy of the film was obtained by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for use during the trial. Copies of the film were allowed to be made and were soon being further copied and shown throughout the United States and the rest of the world. In March 1975, during the late-night TV show Goodnight America (hosted by Geraldo Rivera) assassination researchers Robert Groden and Dick Gregory presented the first-ever mass audience public TV showing of the Zapruder film in motion. The public's response and outrage to that first public showing led immediately, and directly, to the forming of the Hart-Schweiker investigation, contributed to the Church Committee Investigation on Intelligence Activities by the United States, and led to the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation. In 1975 LIFE sold the film back to the Zapruder family for the token sum of $1. The Zapruder family asked the U.S. government to store the film safely and help protect it from deterioration. The U.S. government now preserves the film in the National Archives. In 1998, the original film was purchased by the United States government under the doctrine of eminent domain, and Zapruder's heirs sued to increase the amount paid for it to $16,000,000. The Zapruder family still retains all showing rights to the film. The Zapruder family at that time also donated one of the copies and various LIFE photo prints to the Sixth Floor Museum in what used to be the Texas School Book Depository building. Perhaps while Miller's technical problems are being cleared up, he can find the cite stating Garrison, himself "had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Perhaps while Miller's technical problems are being cleared up, he can find the cite stating Garrison, himself "had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film"? It's too bad, David that you have spent so much time trolling the JFK assassination field rather than learning more about what had been going on. Its been no secret that the first bootleg copies of the Zapruder film came from Garrison's office. I think that we can agree that Garrison was the head of his own office. I don't recall which book that Mark Lane wrote how copies were obtained, but you're not serious enough to want to know it anyway, but you can browse Lane's works over and probably find it. Penn Jones has also been said to say that the bootlegs came from Garrison's office. Garrison was a smart man. I believe that Weisburg told me words to the effect that Garrison would leave the copy he had lay out on his desk and if it was still there the next day, then he could assume no one had taken it - get my drift. Plausible denial! This way no one could be found of wrong doing ... Ol' Jim Garrison was a smart man in my opinion. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted July 27, 2008 Author Share Posted July 27, 2008 I haven't read this entire thread, but I came across a few documents that might have something to do with bootleg Zapruders or another film of the assassination out there. This report concerns the owner/bartender of the Golden Twenties Tavern in Dallas, whose patron, Jim Conners, claimed to have seen a film of the assassination, including the head shot, on a television at IBM on the afternoon of 11/22/63. FBI 124-10276-10035 Thanks, Bill, that was very helpful. What I'm particularly keen to find is examples from 1975 of interviews with, and comments from, those who believed they'd seen the film well before: I dimly recall reading (or was it hearing?) such material years ago, but I'm damned if I can remember the source(s). It would be very instructive, of course, if those disparaging such recollections turned out to be connected with the false memory syndrome movement and its, er, financiers!Paul Here’s the kind of thing I had in mind: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...28/ai_n16644653 Time fogged my memory of Kennedy film Chris Hicks, Deseret Morning News, Jul 28, 2006 Several alert readers sent e-mails regarding last week's column about Walter Cronkite, to point out that I was mistaken about having seen the Zapruder film on television within days of the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963.Footage of the presidential motorcade was repeatedly shown during that dark period, but the Zapruder film -- the only footage to actually capture the assassination -- wasn't shown to the general public for another decade. (Although Life magazine purchased exclusive rights within days of the assassination and published film frames in print from a week later.) One of those e-mails came from Steve North, now a senior producer at NBC: "The Zapruder film was never shown on TV until 1975, when Geraldo Rivera was given a bootleg copy and he aired it on his ABC late-night show, 'Good Night America.' I remember that moment well, as I watched at home, when the audience gasped at the violence they were witnessing. "A couple of months later, I graduated from college and got my first full-time job in broadcasting ... which happened to be working for Geraldo. He asked me to put together a follow-up program to that first Kennedy show." My thanks to Steve and to others who wrote in. Like many people my age, I've now seen the film so many times since that first public showing in 1975 that I guess I let my memory of it morph with the events surrounding the 1963 assassination. As humorist Peter De Vries said, nostalgia isn't what it used to be. http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,640196299,00.html New anchors can't compare with Cronkite By Chris Hicks, Deseret Morning News Published: July 21, 2006 The lead story on this page today about Walter Cronkite brought back a flood of memories to me.Cronkite was the big brother, the father figure, the witness reporter who, during my younger days, told us about some of the biggest news events of the late 20th century. He had been anchoring the "CBS Evening News" for more than a year, and I had watched him many times, but he didn't really enter my consciousness until that day in November 1963 that no baby boomer will ever forget. I was a sophomore in high school, sitting in class, when the crackly intercom interrupted the teachers in the middle of their lessons to announce that President Kennedy had been shot. School was dismissed and I walked home, thinking about how my parents had talked about Kennedy a lot, about how he was a Catholic just like us, and all the good things they saw in him for the future of our country. Some of those things would be deflated in subsequent years, but right now, Kennedy was a fallen saint, and in our house — as with most of the country — there would be mourning. And much of it would take place around the TV set. When I got home, I found my mother watching television — most unusual in the middle of the day. She was also teary-eyed, even more unusual any time of day. On that small black-and-white screen was an unending newscast about the assassination of our 35th president. And over the next several days it became a communal event; people all over the country were glued to their TVs, watching in disbelief as the Zapruder film was shown over and over, and then seeing all those connecting events: President Johnson being sworn in, Ruby shooting Oswald, the pageantry of the funeral. . . . And there in the midst of it all was Walter Cronkite, telling us about each event as it unfolded. He was distinguished, assertive, somewhat paternal, and occasionally with a choke in his throat that told us it was OK to be sad, even to cry if we felt like it. And we did. It's become a cliche to say you remember where you were when Kennedy was shot. But I also remember where I was when Robert Kennedy was shot. And when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. And during all those reports about the Vietnam War and Watergate. And Cronkite was there, too. He's been off the nightly news for 2 1/2 decades now, but he's still been around, doing stories, hosting documentaries, writing memoirs — and even showing up with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir one year! He's the favorite uncle who lives out of town but drops in to visit. And I'll be watching when PBS's "American Masters" airs a profile of Cronkite on Ch. 7 next week. How could I miss it? It'll be like watching home movies. Some of this has to do with his tenure as the ultimate news figurehead. And some has to do with the way TV news has changed. There's so much happy talk, melodramatic background music and cheesy celebrity "news" that it's hard to take it seriously. Cronkite could occasionally lose his objectivity — but would he interview Britney Spears for a prime-time newsmagazine or dress in drag for a Halloween show or engage in inane chitchat with a 20-year-old giggly anchor who looks like a runway model? Walter Cronkite was "the most trusted man in America." And he may be the last of a dying breed. An interesting exchange on this subject took place in 2007 at the locations listed below. The debate began with a misunderstanding: An ardent defender of the anti-conspiratorial line mistakenly thought a previous contributor was referring to films of the assassination being shown repeatedly on TV in the immediate aftermath & set about correcting the “error.” A third contributor recalled seeing just such a film of the assassination over and over on television at this time. Note how she brings her memory into line with the consensus that it had to be the Muchmore film; and the introduction of a televised interview with a psychologist to ram home the message. By the way, the location of the broadcaster of the assassination film in the days following the coup was…New York. http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal...d=25569#M100735 Clapton 71 wrote:I do know that some people believe the Zapruder film was shown on tv and it certainly wasn't. http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal...&format=one Clapton71 wrote:I don't know. I saw a show once where this psychologist was talking about how many people believed they actually saw the assassination film played on tv the weekend Kennedy was killed....which of course is not historically true. It's so burned into our psyche now that there's a distortion of time going on with many people. http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal...d=26868#M100707 maggiemae656 wrote:Apparently the film that was broadcast was not the Zapruder film...I remember seeing the broadcast, just as Sandy45 said, over and over. Possibly the one we saw was filmed by Marie Muchmore, who turned her undeveloped film over to the UPI on 11/25/63. It was first aired by WNEW-TV on 11/26/63. http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal...d=26872#M100737 maggiemae656 wrote:We only had a few channels back then, and we were able to access NY broadcasting. You have to remember, in those days, we were not accustomed to the special effects and quality of video that we have today. That short little segment on Muchmore's film was very impactful. You look at it now, and possibly can't appreciate the effect that video had on people because you are used to the advancements in filmography that didn't exist back then. You may not be able to get that same shock value because of the technology we now have. I was young, but I feel strongly that I saw a video shot before, during and after the assassination. I never really gave much thought as to who actually did the filming. Fortunately for the puzzled lady - like Chris Hicks, armed only with her “false” memory - someone in Power had given much thought to the issue, and abundant reassurance was only a google search or two away, reconciling her to the historical “truth” of the matter. Ironically, the lady’s signature proclaims: “Just the issues, not a political party line.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 False memory (or memory merge) can happen. For years I merged two events, one in 1944 and one in 1949, both concerning the same location. As a result, I remembered a person being there in 1944 who was not; he was not employed there till 1947...but I would have sworn he was there in '44, until once someone proved my memory wrong. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 False memory (or memory merge) can happen. For years I merged two events, one in1944 and one in 1949, both concerning the same location. As a result, I remembered a person being there in 1944 who was not; he was not employed there till 1947...but I would have sworn he was there in '44, until once someone proved my memory wrong. Jack Entirely True! Not too many years back I was discussing with Barbara various events which actually transpired in Vietnam in early 68. In my "mind" for many a year, events of two seperate and different encounters with NVA forces, had been combined into a single encounter/firefight. Barbara, who had received letters from me, stated that I was incorrect and that it was two separate events, to which I protested. She then showed me the letters written on the subject, which, as she had stated, was two distiinct and seperate events. Being the "doubting Thomas", I thereafter dug out my diary which was written at the time of the events, and it too stated that this was too separate events with totally seperate dates. To this day, my "memory" still has these events combined into a single combat event, yet I know beyond any doubt that the memory is incorrect as the letters and diary were written at the time of occurence. Therefore, when one places their faith in "memory" alone, then they are on quite shaky ground. And the older one gets, the worse it also appears to be. Guess one should be thankful that they can remember anything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 False memory (or memory merge) can happen. For years I merged two events, one in1944 and one in 1949, both concerning the same location. As a result, I remembered a person being there in 1944 who was not; he was not employed there till 1947...but I would have sworn he was there in '44, until once someone proved my memory wrong. Jack Entirely True! Not too many years back I was discussing with Barbara various events which actually transpired in Vietnam in early 68. In my "mind" for many a year, events of two seperate and different encounters with NVA forces, had been combined into a single encounter/firefight. Barbara, who had received letters from me, stated that I was incorrect and that it was two separate events, to which I protested. She then showed me the letters written on the subject, which, as she had stated, was two distiinct and seperate events. Being the "doubting Thomas", I thereafter dug out my diary which was written at the time of the events, and it too stated that this was too separate events with totally seperate dates. To this day, my "memory" still has these events combined into a single combat event, yet I know beyond any doubt that the memory is incorrect as the letters and diary were written at the time of occurence. Therefore, when one places their faith in "memory" alone, then they are on quite shaky ground. And the older one gets, the worse it also appears to be. Guess one should be thankful that they can remember anything! Jack, Tom, I sympathise with – and share – the proclivity to conflate memories. So let us thank the lucky stars that Mark Lane committed his (television viewing) to paper, just as Tom did in his diary, so contemporaneously: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...rt=#entry148026 The following extract is from the expanded – eight-page pamphlet version – of Mark Lane’s original article on the case, “Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald,” published by the National Guardian, 19 December 1963: “A motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat, was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show exactly the same situation.” http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html Note the order: Lane first saw the film was on television, then a few stills from it in Life’s first post-assassination issue of November 29. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now