Jump to content

Zapruder film on US (NY?) TV in 1963


Recommended Posts

From patspeer.com, chapter 4:

...

Equally intriguing, when asked a series of questions about his work on the Willis photo in a 1977 civil suit brought by Harold Weisberg, Shaneyfelt testified "I may have" three times and "I don't recall" five times, and asserted blandly that "I am sure the record speaks for itself." Yes, it does--to those who listen.)

Pat, where can one find a transcript of the Weisberg civil suit?

Thanks,

David

A researcher who appreciated my efforts on the paraffin test sent me some of the depositions from Weisberg's FOIA case. He told me he got them from Weisberg's attorney, Jim Lesar. I imagine one can get all these transcripts from the Weisberg Archives at Hood College. Perhaps Lesar can be talked into putting them up on Mary Ferrell.

Anyhow, there's not all that much of substance in the depositions. It's mostly obfuscation and attitude. Intriguingly, three out of the four FBI honchos to be deposed retired within a few months of each other in 1975, just as pressure for a new investigation was mounting. Two of them--Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier--insisted that they were being used as expert witnesses by Weisberg, and refused to answer any questions about the JFK case not related directly to their previous testimony, unless Weisberg paid them their going rate. So much for their being dedicated civil servants, dedicated to exposing the truth.

P.S. If you're looking for their answers to any particular question, I'll look back through them and post their answers. But, outside the quick questions on Willis, most of the questions had to do with the ballistics tests, particularly the NAA tests on the bullet fragments.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This 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 show exactly the same situation.”

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html

How could Lane write, in an article published in the 19 December 1963 edition of the National Guardian, of having viewed the Zapruder film on television, when, according to the Department of Zapruderland Security and fellow-travellers, the film wasn’t shown on television until 1975? (1).

Well, if the hypothesis advanced in the thread Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on 26 November 1963? – to wit, that the first version of the Z film debuted on that station at 12:46 a.m. on the morning of Tuesday, 26 November 1963 - is correct, we have an explanation.

So where was Lane 25-26 November 1963? According to the forward to A Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane replies (NY: Fawcett Crest, April 1969), in New York. From the same source, we learn that he commenced work on his defence brief for Oswald on Tuesday, 26 November:

“…Henry Wade, the Dallas prosecutor, called a press conference soon after Oswald’s death was announced…When the New York Times published the text of the press conference two days later (2), I was able to study the allegations more leisurely…I sat down to analyze the charges…When I was finished, I had written a ten-thousand word article…,” p.16

Lane’s recollection of the showing of the Z film fulfils the classic criteria for preferment as an historical source: it was spontaneous; contemporaneous; and disinterested. It also had recent and related precedent.

Just as in the case of Dan Rather and his rather more detailed descriptions of the radically different first version of the Z film, as offered on CBS (radio and TV) on 25 November, Lane could have had no inkling of the plotters’ plans for the film. There never was, it almost passes without remark, formal notice of the first version’s withdrawal for “editing,” merely the announcement that Time-Life had acquired film rights in addition to the still ones.

In A Citizen’s Dissent, Lane noted that advance proof sheets of his original defense brief were “sent to the United Press International (UPI) by the Guardian. The UPI responded that they ‘wouldn’t touch it’” (3) No wonder. If the Milwaukee Journal report of 26 November 1963 was accurate, UPI had “obtained” (or, more likely, merely been allocated) the original film rights for the Z film’s first version (4). Lane’s reference to having viewed it on TV would inevitably have set alarm bells ringing within the senior ranks of the organisation: It was now involved in the dissemination of amnesia and confusion with regard to the film, not the film itself.

Notes:

(1) Complete drivel, of course, as Pat Valentino recently proved on Len Osanic’s Black Op radio: the film was shown on a Los Angeles TV station, KTLA-TV, during the Clay Shaw trial, in February 1969, six years earlier than Groden and the DZS claim. http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2008.html (Show #368, 3 April 2008).

(2) DeLloyd J. Guth & David R. Wrone. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Biography, 1963-1979 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980), p.267: “Dallas Prosecutor’s News Conference,” NYT, 26 November 1963, p.14. The transcript, the compilers note in parenthesis, was “from WBC-TV.” Curious how this conference was faithfully recorded, but not that given by the Parkland doctors on 22 November 1963.

(3) Mark Lane. A Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane replies (NY: Fawcett Crest, April 1969), p.19.

(4) AP, "Movie Film Depicts Shooting of Kennedy,” Milwaukee Journal, November 26, 1963, part 1, p.3: "The film also was being distributed by United Press International Newsfilms to subscribing stations. WITI-TV in Milwaukee is a subscriber, but will reserve judgment on whether to show the film until after its officials have viewed it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could Lane write, in an article published in the 19 December 1963 edition of the National Guardian, of having viewed the Zapruder film on television, when, according to the Department of Zapruderland Security and fellow-travellers, the film wasn’t shown on television until 1975? (1).

I have an idea, but it won't be as fun for you as writing response after response full of theory - conjecture - propaganda - all designed to push paranoia ........ Why not contact Lane and see what he tell you??????

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea, but it won't be as fun for you as writing response after response full of theory - conjecture - propaganda - all designed to push paranoia ........ Why not contact Lane and see what he tell you??????

Bill Miller[/b]

Mark Lane is never hard to find. As far as I know, this information is current

http://marklane.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea, but it won't be as fun for you as writing response after response full of theory - conjecture - propaganda - all designed to push paranoia ........ Why not contact Lane and see what he tell you??????

Bill Miller[/b]

I take it you enjoyed the post, then, Bill? Thought you might.

Mark Lane is never hard to find. As far as I know, this information is current

http://marklane.com/

Cheers, Jay, I'll give it a shot.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers, Jay, I'll give it a shot.

Paul

Cheers, Paul. While you are at it, can you please find out what a beautiful woman like Patricia Lane (see photo)

http://marklane.com/about/index.htm

is doing with the likes of Mark Lane. Is she his daughter?

I am asking this on behalf of Ron Ecker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you enjoyed the post, then, Bill? Thought you might.

Paul

Actually, I think anytime someone like yourself will run up threads about someone like Lane and what he has said concerning the Zapruder film without first making sure that you are speaking for the man correctly is irresponsible ... especially when you attempt to try and tie him in with supporting your pushing for Zapruder film alteration. Isn't it always the case ... misstate the record - avoid checking your facts - and then use someone like Mark Lane's name to promote your paranoia. If you don't like hearing what I said, then I doubt you'll like hearing what Mark Lane will say about it.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you enjoyed the post, then, Bill? Thought you might.

Paul

Actually, I think anytime someone like yourself will run up threads about someone like Lane and what he has said concerning the Zapruder film without first making sure that you are speaking for the man correctly is irresponsible ... especially when you attempt to try and tie him in with supporting your pushing for Zapruder film alteration. Isn't it always the case ... misstate the record - avoid checking your facts - and then use someone like Mark Lane's name to promote your paranoia. If you don't like hearing what I said, then I doubt you'll like hearing what Mark Lane will say about it.

Bill Miller

I'm fascinated to know, Bill, how quoting Lane verbatim from an early 1963 piece of his constitutes a) "misstating" the record; B) avoiding checking facts; and c) promoting paranoia? Your third piece of frippery is particularly absurd given the nature of Lane's article. Remind me, what exactly was Lane seeking to achieve with that original defense brief of his - spread contentment with the official line?

Translated, all your post amounts to is - "Your citations are accurate, but I don't like the conclusion you draw from them, nor the hypothesis which lead you to look for supporting evidence in the first place." Tough. Now do something constructive for a change and explain what on earth possessed Lane to write of having seen the Zapruder film on TV in Nov-Dec 1963?

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Translated, all your post amounts to is - "Your citations are accurate, but I don't like the conclusion you draw from them, nor the hypothesis which lead you to look for supporting evidence in the first place." Tough. Now do something constructive for a change and explain what on earth possessed Lane to write of having seen the Zapruder film on TV in Nov-Dec 1963?

Paul

Paul, this is the same old nonsense that goes on all the time with the alteration pushers. They read something - find a citation that is open to interpretation - and put their spin on it in order to make themselves 'APPEAR' right. One example that always comes to mind was people using Jean Hill's comment that she stepped out in the street to support the Zapruder film being altered. It wasn't until years after the fact that a caller actually phoned a radio show and asked Jean point blank about this that it was discovered that she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot was ever fired. Another example was a forum member here arguing for the longest time that Sam Holland ran off the underpass 'IMMEDIATELY' so he could spin it that no one was firing from behind the fence or Holland would have seen them. The Dillard #3 photo showed that this guy's interpretation was dead wrong! The point I am making is that in both cases, interpretation was not necessary because there were avenues that could have been taken to avoid so much disinformation being infiltrated into the data that newer researchers and students depend on so to get an understanding of what happened on 11/22/63. Jean Hill was alive for years after the alteration claim pertaining to her was born. Mark Lane is still alive and yet when someone challenged your interpretation ... you didn't bother trying to contact Mark so to try and avoid misrepresenting something that he had written. In this case, Lane read an article or saw something on TV that referenced Zapruder by way of the Muchmore film. You were made aware of this long ago and did nothing to validate your position.

I watch where people post claiming 'alteration' by way of an assassination film that they have seen off of TV ... possibly it has too many frames ... perhaps it has film damage, but instead of checking first to find out what information is available about the original film, they start posting that they have discovered alteration ... and instead of showing that something was altered, they only showed that their research poor practices seemed to lead to an erroneous conclusion that came about unnecessarily. I am always asking Gary Mack if these people bothered to contact him to acquire any data before posting their conclusions and the answer I get is in almost every instance is "NO!" We aren't talking about Mack's opinions, but instead the data pertaining to the witnesses and/or films. The Museum even has what is called an 'Oral History' which is where many of the people involved in and around the assassination either as a witness or in some other capacity was interviewed so to get a detailed accounting of their experience, which can add clarification to an issue being discussed here, but no one bothers to ask about them. Instead, we are flooded with peoples interpretations - often times we only hear what appears to be only slanted partial version of the facts when all this could be avoided by a more in-depth search for the available data.

So in the end it is not the idea that someone raised an alteration issue based on the information that they had at the time that I find suspicious, but rather once they have been made aware that they could be in error ... they continue to repeat their position without attempting to gather more available information. It becomes a matter of needing to appear right - rather than a need to be accurate and that is what I find troubling about the whole alteration affair.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Lane is still alive and yet when someone challenged your interpretation ... you didn't bother trying to contact Mark so to try and avoid misrepresenting something that he had written. In this case, Lane read an article or saw something on TV that referenced Zapruder by way of the Muchmore film. You were made aware of this long ago and did nothing to validate your position.

”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 show exactly the same situation.”

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html

Don't work, Bill: Lane explicity states the stills in Life were taken from the film shown on television. Couldn't be clearer.

Second, I have every intention of contacting Lane. He'll be invited to post his recollections directly onto the thread. Unlike you, I don't rely on secret back channels, and publicly cite my sources.

Third, how do you know what his response will be? Unless you've contacted him previously, you couldn't possibly know his response. Perhaps you're psychic.

Four, if you haven't contacted Lane, you're a hypocrite for chiding others for failure to do so. After all, what's stopping you?

I am always asking Gary Mack if these people bothered to contact him to acquire any data before posting their conclusions and the answer I get is in almost every instance is "NO!" We aren't talking about Mack's opinions, but instead the data pertaining to the witnesses and/or films. The Museum even has what is called an 'Oral History' which is where many of the people involved in and around the assassination either as a witness or in some other capacity was interviewed so to get a detailed accounting of their experience, which can add clarification to an issue being discussed here, but no one bothers to ask about them. Instead, we are flooded with peoples interpretations - often times we only hear what appears to be only slanted partial version of the facts when all this could be avoided by a more in-depth search for the available data.

The reputation of Mack for bias is legend and justified. A new and different curator of the Museum is another matter.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Translated, all your post amounts to is - "Your citations are accurate, but I don't like the conclusion you draw from them, nor the hypothesis which lead you to look for supporting evidence in the first place." Tough. Now do something constructive for a change and explain what on earth possessed Lane to write of having seen the Zapruder film on TV in Nov-Dec 1963?

Paul

Paul, this is the same old nonsense that goes on all the time with the alteration pushers. They read something - find a citation that is open to interpretation - and put their spin on it in order to make themselves 'APPEAR' right.

[...]

Bill Miller

I think we'll call you Bill "this is the same old nonsense" Miller from now on.....

Speaking of "alteration pushers", interviewer-coaching and creative/manipulative documentary editing.... I direct attention to David Lifton's article: "Pig on a Leash", The Great Zapruder Film HOAX (3rd printing-2005), pg.421-22 concerning Mary Moorman's stepping off the curb-onto the street controversy (recorded during the videotaping of a much heralded Dealey Plaza films and photos documentary aired on one of the cable channel networks a few years ago).

Has GMack's comments as detailed in Lifton's article, concerning coaching during the Mary Moorman's segment, have those coaching comments been denied by the 6th Floor Museum? If not, why not? What kind of excuse, er, citation, do YOU have (apparently you're the current 6th Floor Museum spokesperson on this board) for this?

I'm under the impression, this entire Morman Dealey Plaza videotape sequence (complete with outtakes) is documented and preserved. Now back to Mark Lane....

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch where people post claiming 'alteration' by way of an assassination film that they have seen off of TV ... possibly it has too many frames ... perhaps it has film damage, but instead of checking first to find out what information is available about the original film, they start posting that they have discovered alteration affair.

Bill Miller

The Towner film has 160 frames. I extracted them and supplied a copy(in movie form playing at 15FPS) for those who were interested.

What does it show. That Towner's camera DID NOT shoot at 24 FPS.

So Myer's multiple film sync using the Z film as it's benchmark, is up in smoke.

Someone who wants to know the truth would at least run physical speed tests on the cameras in question.

Well, with the Sears Tower Varizoom Model 584.91250 Serial # 37774 I just obtained, I did just that.

Guess what!! It should come as no surprise this camera DID NOT operate at 24FPS.

10 different speed tests of 1, 3 and 5 seconds with the camera on full wind yielded results of 16, 17 and 18 FPS.

When broken down it was 16(3x) 17(5x) and 18(2x).

It's real easy to come up with a FPS solution when using the Z FILM as a comparison marker with all other films.

As I have pointed out previously, Z frames 1-132 at 18.3 FPS= 7.21 SEC

Towner at 168 frames (Myer's includes 160+8 missing frames)= 168 at 23.3 FPS= 7.21 SEC

No individual PHYSICAL testing was done on Towner's camera to prove it's 23.3 FPS speed used by Myer's is correct. There is a reason for that.

A simple math and any camera's FPS rate can be plugged in to sync with Z's.

Why not tell us what path the limo traveled(in the turn) from Houston onto Elm St.

How long did it take to complete the turn?

The SS was able to plot JFK's position within the limo from Houston St. all the way down Elm St.

Guess what, it sure doesn't match what Myer's has provided and guess where the biggest discrepancy occurs.

I've done my research and the evidence is overwhelming.

Here's some footage for you.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

”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 show exactly the same situation.”

Paul

Paul, I am going to point out something here that you don't want to see, but I am sure that others who are not hell-bent on pushing disinformation in support of alteration will understand it.

In the quote you posted above ... to read it your way means that Lane said that the still frames from the Zapruder film show exactly what the Zapruder film does. Now does that sound right to you ... be honest for a change!!! Is it not apparent that the film Lane speaks of (Muchmore's) shows the same thing that the Zapruder frames published in Life Magazine does. If you contact Lane, you will find that he will probably tell you that he would not say something so outlandish as to say the stills from a said film shows what the motion picture of the same film does ... there would be no reason to say such a thing because any idiot would know that. Lane will tell you that he simply referenced another assassination film that mirrored what the Zapruder still frames seen in Life Magazine had showed.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of "alteration pushers", interviewer-coaching and creative/manipulative documentary editing.... I direct attention to David Lifton's article: "Pig on a Leash", The Great Zapruder Film HOAX (3rd printing-2005), pg.421-22 concerning Mary Moorman's stepping off the curb-onto the street controversy (recorded during the videotaping of a much heralded Dealey Plaza films and photos documentary aired on one of the cable channel networks a few years ago).

Has GMack's comments as detailed in Lifton's article, concerning coaching during the Mary Moorman's segment, have those coaching comments been denied by the 6th Floor Museum? If not, why not? What kind of excuse, er, citation, do YOU have (apparently you're the current 6th Floor Museum spokesperson on this board) for this?

I'll address the latter part of you response - first. You are once again asking someone to speak for the Museum as if they are not talking. This reminds me of your bitching that you had not gotten to examine the historical films and photos and leaving out the part where you never bothered to first make the request to do so. Contact Gary Mack and ask him the question and feel free to post the answer. I know that you know how to contact the Museum because I know that you had done so about the Life Magazine materials in the past ... even though you didn't make that known in your responses while pretending that you didn't know the answer already.

As far as Lifton goes ... are you really wanting to try and vindicate his chapter in the book by using 'Moorman in the Street'??? After all, you had read Lifton's article before posting to this forum that you had seen no proof of alteration ... something you claimed to have been saying all along if I remember correctly. I might also add that Lifton failed to see that Moorman's said 54.5" camera height was elevated above the 58" high off the ground windscreens of the passing cycles or that Altgens #6 in the same book which was said to be genuine and could be used against all other assassination images showed Moorman's shadow coming from up over the curb and in the grass.

So I'll ask you again ... does someone like yourself who said that you have seen no proof of alteration after having seen the Moorman in the street claim' and had read Lifton's article as well ... do you really think you want to try and argue alteration on that record ... GET REAL!!!

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of "alteration pushers", interviewer-coaching and creative/manipulative documentary editing.... I direct attention to David Lifton's article: "Pig on a Leash", The Great Zapruder Film HOAX (3rd printing-2005), pg.421-22 concerning Mary Moorman's stepping off the curb-onto the street controversy (recorded during the videotaping of a much heralded Dealey Plaza films and photos documentary aired on one of the cable channel networks a few years ago).

Has GMack's comments as detailed in Lifton's article, concerning coaching during the Mary Moorman's segment, have those coaching comments been denied by the 6th Floor Museum? If not, why not? What kind of excuse, er, citation, do YOU have (apparently you're the current 6th Floor Museum spokesperson on this board) for this?

I'll address the latter part of you response - first. You are once again asking someone to speak for the Museum as if they are not talking. This reminds me of your bitching that you had not gotten to examine the historical films and photos and leaving out the part where you never bothered to first make the request to do so. Contact Gary Mack and ask him the question and feel free to post the answer. I know that you know how to contact the Museum because I know that you had done so about the Life Magazine materials in the past ... even though you didn't make that known in your responses while pretending that you didn't know the answer already.

As far as Lifton goes ... are you really wanting to try and vindicate his chapter in the book by using 'Moorman in the Street'??? After all, you had read Lifton's article before posting to this forum that you had seen no proof of alteration ... something you claimed to have been saying all along if I remember correctly. I might also add that Lifton failed to see that Moorman's said 54.5" camera height was elevated above the 58" high off the ground windscreens of the passing cycles or that Altgens #6 in the same book which was said to be genuine and could be used against all other assassination images showed Moorman's shadow coming from up over the curb and in the grass.

So I'll ask you again ... does someone like yourself who said that you have seen no proof of alteration after having seen the Moorman in the street claim' and had read Lifton's article as well ... do you really think you want to try and argue alteration on that record ... GET REAL!!!

Bill Miller

Funny I see NO response from the 6th Floor Museum here or in any other thread for that matter, unless of course you're claiming to represent them. Is that true, are YOU representing the 6th Floor Museum? Just pass the message on, son -- and regarding this thread topic, it appears Mr. Rigby has you all spun up, again.....

Have you, by-the-way, contacted Mark Lane? There is no foul language allowed here, son... If you can't control yourself, I'll request Ms. Beckett throw your rear-end out of here for breaking forum rules. So, straighten up and fly right, we don't want Gary losing his mouthpiece here, now would we?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...