Z-frame numbering and Gary Murr

David G. Healy · March 26, 2009

Gary Murr response to DHealy: (Lancer forum Tue Oct-29-02 10:06 AM) **

no "grasping" problem at all Gary. Quite the opposite in fact, you in the above state:

forgive me the following, a cite (a document stating same) please for the above 01/30/1964 date would be much appreciated. Or can I use you as the "official" source for the numbering date?

Also I'll make this same response to the on-going Zapruder film thread started by BKelly.

Thanks for you patience Gary,

DHealy

**= should be noted Gary Murr responded to this same Z-film frame number question/topic (of which I was involved in) here on this Ed Forum during 2007

Edited March 26, 2009 by David G. Healy

Gary Murr · March 28, 2009

Hi David:

I apologize for not responding sooner, but it was unavoidable as I was no where near my home and access to my materials when this thread, and related others, began. I thank you for your patience. My personal collection of documents now exceeds 300,000 pages and it took me a little while to "lay my hands" on the material I was seeking in order that I could formulate a cohesive response to your request. I am not exactly a shining example of exactitude when it comes to cataloging these materials, something I am saving for retirement! I also must apologize if I have misinterpreted some of your responses concerning the film of Abraham Zapruder and the question of alteration, in particular pertaining to the roll played, or not played, by the CIA and NPIC - but that is a matter that perhaps is best discussed, if you so desire, another time and in another thread, or for that matter, in private if you wish.

In response to your immediate request for a citation in support of my contention that Lyndal Shaneyfelt constructed the Z-film numbering system universally accepted and utilized when discussing the Zapruder film on a specific date, January 30, 1964, I hopefully have attached two images taken from Shaneyfelt's worknotes he generated in conjunction with this specific aspect of his contact with the film of Abraham Zapruder. Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance. The two pages from the Shaneyfelt worknotes that he constructed in conjunction with the Zapruder film can be found in: 62-109060-4199, Box097B, Folder 7, and 62-109060-4199, Box 098, Folder 3. I have also spent some time over the last couple of days searching FBI documents accessible via the internet, in particular the Mary Farrell Foundation website, in an effort to ascertain if any of this material is available to the interested researcher. I suspect that Rex Bradford and others have not had the time to reproduce the materials from these numerous bulky files generated by the FBI lab, documentation that literally goes on for thousands and thousands of pages. However, I did stumble across one page from this same series of notes and if you have access to the FBI documents generated at the Mary Ferrell website you will find it as part of 62-109060-2348, the second page. You will note, once again, Shaneyfelts distinctive "LS" scrawl and the date of "1-30-64: affixed to this page, taken from the same workbook I possess a copy of and have reproduced pages for you in this reply.

I hope you find this of some interest.

Gary Murr

Edited November 4, 2023 by Gary Murr
To free up alloted space

Pat Speer · March 29, 2009

Thanks, Gary. Great info, as usual. While some on this website cling to the idea the FBI believed the head shot was the second shot, here, in Shaneyfelt's notes, he shows that as early as 1-30-64 he felt frame 313 showed the third shot.

David G. Healy · March 29, 2009

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks Gary!

--finally--

Regarding the above notes you speak of, did Shaneyfelt state what film he viewed determining the numbering sequence (#0183, #0185, #1086, #1087) or a Washington based/created dupe of one of the four?

David Healy

Edited March 29, 2009 by David G. Healy

Gary Murr · March 29, 2009

Hi David:

In a pique of unbridled optimism, I once attempted to track or create a provenance for the theoretical in-camera original of the Zapruder film and the copies generated in Dallas on November 22, 1963 - an exercise that produced more than its share of frustration, not to mention confusion! In that regard, and in answer to your question, Shaneyfelt never identifies in his working notes just which Zapruder film copy he was utilizing in conjunction with this exercise on his part. However, my personal opinion is that it was a copy generated from Dallas dupe identified as #0186, and I will give you the reasoning behind my speculative opinion.

One thing we do not know to a certainty, and just possibly may never know, is just how many copies of the Zapruder film were generated by FBI lab personnel once they got their hands on the SS provided copy via Dallas. In my digging through the FBI lab bulky materials at NARA II there is clear indication of the existence of at least six copies of the Z film, three to be found in 62-109060-4182, Part 2, Box # 094C, Folder D, two of which are labeled as " copies of 8mm Zapruder film made from first copy borrowed from Secret Service." There are three more copies found in 62-109060-4193, Box # 102A, Folder 4, which is labeled "3 copies of Zapruder film" two of which appear to be full copies of the film, while the third is only a partial, chopped-up copy. Again documentation in this folder indicates that "the copies were made from the first copy borrowed from the Secret Service."

The interesting thing about those FBI copies of the Z film that are classified as "complete" and do contain head leader material is that optically imprinted on the film is the printer # 0186. Understand that this is an optical/photographic imprint visible on the surface of the leader, an image generated from the actual punched-in imprint produced on this, the second first generation copy produced on behalf of the Secret Service. My study of the records of the ARRB indicate that on four occasions between August of 1996 and April of 1997, Douglas Horne examined nine "different" copies of the Z film at NARA, duly recorded in a lengthy memorandum he generated under the date of April 7, 1997 [ARRB: Memorandum dated April 9, 1997. To: David Marwell, Jeremy Gunn: From: Doug Horne. Records of the ARRB, 4-Series-Research and Analysis, Box 37, File 4.0.2. Subject Files: Zapruder, Abraham.] In his "data chart" that is part of this memorandum, Horne noted that the "complete" FBI copies of the Z film he examined had "the number 0186 photographically printed onto this film, but is not punched into the film, as it i in Secret Service Copy # 2." As I stated above, this was noted by myself during a visit to NARA in 1999. I also have communicated with Les Waffen, NNSM at NARA on more than one occasion concerning the markings on the FBI copies of the film and again, the only "identification" apparent on those copies that do contain leader is this # 0186 imprint. In October of 1996, Waffen and nine other individuals spent just under five hours, "at the request of the DOJ", in examining the original Zapruder film, Zapruder's original camera, and six copies of the Zapruder film, one of which, identified as "65 JFK .024" is stated as being "FBI copy of the Z film" with a "notes for file" in Waffen's original October 30, 1996 memorandum that states: "Textual documentation [found with 65 JFK .024] indicates this as copy made from 1st copy borrowed from the Secret Service." Apparently "this copy was received in NARA from FBI in 1995, transferred to NNSM in April, 1996." [Waffen was kind enough to supply me with a copy of his memorandum dated October 30, 1996 on this subject matter].

On February 23 and 24, 1998, Harry Livingstone and three of his associates were "provided access to various JFK assassination materials..." an event monitored by Alan Lewis of NNSM, NARA, permission granted to Livingstone by Les Waffen and Steve Tilley [FOIA, NARA]. Included in the various materials Livingstone et al had access to on February 23 and 24, were eight copies of the Z film, "segments" of which were photographed by Livingstone associate, Matt Branham, on the 24th. Included in this group of Z film copies was "65JFK24" the FBI copy with the printer # 0186 in its leader. [Letter with accompanying memorandum dated 2/25/98, from Alan Lewis, to Les Waffen, Steve Tilley: Subject: Examination of JFK Assassination Materials. Again, this document was graciously supplied to me by Les Waffen].

I hope this at least attempts to answer your question, David. As I stated above, and herein reiterate, my speculation/assumption is that Lyndal Shaneyfelt worked with a copy of Z film #0186, but this has to be identified as speculation on my part, based upon what I have written above.

Gary Murr

David G. Healy · March 29, 2009

thanks again Gary, your speculation and assumption duly noted....

here's a bit more info as to where and how some of these Z-film dupes may of been made... (below emphasis mine)

http://www.mte.com/nysmpte/meetings/sum0004.htm (note: this link is no longer good -- surprise)

MEETING TOPIC: FILM FORENSICS AND THE ZAPRUDER FILM

MEETING DATE: April 18, 2000

MEETING VENUE: Manhattan Center Studios, New York, NY

Over 130 members and guests filled Studio 6 at Manhattan Center Studios to hear Roland Zavada, an Honorary Member of the Society, relate his investigation of the photographic evidence collected after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Until recently the American public had been deprived of full disclosure of the assassination, which clothing manufacturer Abraham Zapruder had recorded with his new Bell and Howell 8mm camera. His 26-second film of the assassination had become the most significant amateur recording of a news event in history. Yet many Americans had continued to seek answers to nagging questions about this tragic event, including the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Before discussing his involvement with his investigation Mr. Zavada set the scene for this disastrous act by mentioning the personalities and events which defined the era of the early 1960s. He spoke of the political, economic and social trends and the influence of the "cold war", the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson. It was an era when secrecy pervaded many government agencies with the result that secrecy surrounded the facts gleaned from the many investigations into the Kennedy assassination. The Warren Commission and other investigative bodies never inspected many of the documents. Evidence was sealed and stored by intelligence and security agencies for almost thirty years, resulting in increasing mistrust of the federal government by the American public. Various researchers raised questions about the authenticity of the 8mm film made by Mr. Zapruder, including the speculation that anomalies in the film frames were evidence of film alteration. There were questions about the presence of claw shadows and ghost images in the perforation area of the film, multiple exposure areas, claw or aperture flare, claw shadow and other strange images. It was, therefore, necessary not only to analyze the motion picture, but also to understand how the camera optics had recorded or imaged the film. In 1997 the JFK Assassinations Records Review Board, created by Congress earlier in the Clinton administration, contacted the Eastman Kodak Co. for help in the investigation of the photographic evidence. Kodak's former research scientist and Standards Director for Imaging Technologies, Roland Zavada, now retired, was recruited. His investigation became very convoluted because some of the evidence, including the actual Bell and Howell 414PD 8mm-movie camera, was not available to him. In the investigative process he was obliged to find and contact hundreds of people who were somehow involved with the evidence. These included people at the film processing laboratory, the optical and mechanical designers of the camera, engineers in film manufacturing and others. He even managed to obtain five identical Bell and Howell cameras that bore serial numbers close to the Zapruder camera. As a result he was able to verify the authenticity of the Zapruder film and ensure that the film belonged to the American public. Other areas of investigation, too numerous to mention here, included the permanent preservation of all the autopsy photographs of President Kennedy in digitized form and performing sophisticated digital enhancement of selected, representative images. All of the original documents of the assassination as well as the reports by the Review Board, totaling over 4 million pages, are now available to the American public in the National Archives. An illustrated synopsis of Mr. Zavada's presentation was distributed to the attendees. Additional copies may be obtained, as noted below. The entire meeting was recorded on videotape and, after editing, will be placed in the SMPTE archives. A long question and answer session included an anecdote related by Everett Hall who, in 1963, was president of Cine Magnetics Film Laboratory. He recalled that three FBI men visited his laboratory and requested that a copy of a single 8mm film of the Kennedy motorcade be duplicated. A 16mm printing machine was modified to accept the 8mm film, which was prepared with appropriate leaders and threaded up or the printing machine. When the printing operator turned off the room lights so that the raw print film could be threaded onto the machine, the FBI agent, who was watching every move, complained that he would no longer be able to observe the duplicating operation in the dark room! At the conclusion of Mr.Zavada's presentation, many SMPTE members reached an interesting conclusion. It was that because of the convoluted process of the investigation, he would not have been able to reach his conclusions without the help of the hundreds of professional and personal contacts, which he had made during his many years as a member and Engineering Vice President of the Society. The meeting facility. Studio 6 of Manhattan Center Productions, was provided courtesy of Mr. Randy Davis, President, with technical coordination by Dan Mathers, Chief Engineer of the Metro Learning Channel. Prior to the meeting a one hour social gathering and buffet supper was provided by the Eastman Kodak Co. After the conclusion of the Q and A session Mr. Mathers conducted tours of the video and audio studios and associated technical facilities. The historical venues in the building were also toured, including the recently restored Manhattan Opera House built by Oscar Hammerstein I (ca. l906) and the ornate Grand Ballroom. The latter was originally built as a Masonic Temple, and is one of the acoustically outstanding venues for music recording sessions. A brochure describing the venue as well as Mr. Zavada's synopsis are available by contacting Ed Schuller by fax only at 516 676-3895, listing your name, address and phone number.

-Ed Schuller, Chair, Archival Papers and Historical Committee

eof

many interesting items in this synopsis published by SMPTE -- DHealy

Edited March 29, 2009 by David G. Healy

Frank Agbat · March 29, 2009

David and Gary,

Interesting and informative posts, gentlemen. Thank you!

Thomas H. Purvis · March 30, 2009

"While some on this website cling to the idea the FBI believed the head shot was the second shot,"

"Some", or at least one of us here, happens to be in possession of the FBI assassination re-enactment survey plat which continues to demonstrate the third shot impact down directly in front of James Altgens location. Exactly as did the SS Survey of 12/5/63.

In addition to also being in possession of other information which clearly demonstrates that what Shaneyfelt has written here, IS NOT what Sheneyfelt knew in regards to the impact locations for the shots fired.

Thomas H. Purvis · March 31, 2009

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?

Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?

Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As has been indicated multiple times, to include having posted portions of the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63 as well as the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64, (both of which demonstrated the exact same impact location for the third shot fired), the below IS NOT the SS Survey Plat.

It is in fact the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64!

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4074-001.gif

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain your reference to a map? You have made several references to that.

Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how were you supplied with that?

Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth, of the measurements which are shown in here.

Mr. McCLOY. It may be received.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be Commission 585.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 585 and received in evidence.)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0144b.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just as this too IS NOT the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, and is in fact the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64.

Both of which place the third/last/final shot impact as having been directly in front of James Altgens location at a slope distance from rifle to JFK of 298 feet, as well as in the exact same location.

It was the WC who quite obviously pulled the wool over a few eyes and made the "blinded" think that the Z313 impact with it's slope distance of 265.3 feet was the last shot fired.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464b.htm

P.S. Shaneyfelt knew exactly where the third shot impact was located, just as he knew that James Altgens was standing exactly over a construction joint in the concrete curbing which was also exactly 5-feet prior to the beginning of the second yellow stripe.

Pat Speer · March 31, 2009

Tom, the link you posted was not to the FBI plat of 2/7, but to the SS plat of 12-5. As stated, YOU have posted the FBI plat on this website and demonstrated that the head shot trajectory for frame 313 at frame 265 was penciled in. The plat in the DPD files has no penciled-in line.

If the 12-5 plat is different than the one in the DPD files, please post the trajectory box from this plat so we can see for ourselves.

As far as your Connally not shot till just in front of Altgens theory, the Z-film shows blood in Connally's armpit before you claim he was shot. Is this, in your opinion, because the Z-film has been altered, or that frames have been removed, so that what it appears to have taken place at one part of the plaza, actually happened further down the street?

Just trying to "get it".

Thomas H. Purvis · March 31, 2009

"Tom, the link you posted was not to the FBI plat of 2/7, but to the SS plat of 12-5. "

As with most things Pat, you remain confused.

The WC exhibit (CE585)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0144b.htm

As well as the City of Dallas plat:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4074-001.gif

Are both the identical same! That being the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64.

The primary data block has the Secret Service indicator as well as the date December 5, 1963. HOWEVER, the revision block down in the bottom contains the date 2/7/64. Which, had you not slept through that portion of the class, you would have known.

Now, the City of Dallas copy does not show the "revision date" block area. However, in event that it did, then it would also show the 2/7/64 as does CE585.

Which merely means that they again pulled the wool over many an unsuspecting eye. (as well as the heads of a lot of

dummies)

All information relative to the two seperate surveys was long ago posted. That you either completely missed them or more likely failed to understand them is too bad.

Don't intend to drag them out of the closet again in attempt to explain to someone, who by the way does not know reverse image photography when they see it, something which they still would not understand.

"YOU have posted the FBI plat on this website and demonstrated that the head shot trajectory for frame 313 at frame 265 was penciled in."

I have absolutely no idea as to what you are even talking about here. Therefore, this merely serves to demonstrate how confused on the subject matter you are.

"As far as your Connally not shot till just in front of Altgens theory, the Z-film shows blood in Connally's armpit before you claim he was shot."

Was that interpretation made by "Carmac the Magnificent"? Are you also of the misguided opinion that all of the horror movies show on TV also "show blood".

Is this the same film which is of such poor quality and clarity that one can not even see ANY of the DPD logo's on the motorcycle helmets of the motorcycle policement, anywhere throughout the film, yet it can pick up and differentiate "blood" on a dark jacket.

Was a DNA test done on the film's silver emulsion to verify that we see "blood"?

The TWO Survey Plats shown are the same exact plat. That being the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 in which the FBI made attempt to move the impact point of the Z313 shot some 22.5 feet prior to it's actual impact. Which by the way placed the shot well prior to JFK having passed the Moorman/Hill position.

Additionally, the third/last/final shot remained the same on both survey plats. That being survey stationing 4+95, which placed the shot impact directly in front of James Altgens position.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0449a.htm

======================================================================

Be sure and come back to visit when you know something of which you are talking about.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis · March 31, 2009

For those who may not have been around long enough to even know what this discussion is about:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0144b.htm

This IS NOT the SS Survey Plat of December 5, 1963.

It is in fact the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 in which the SS Survey Plat was utilized with a "revision date", as are most such professional drawings.

In the bottom right corner (in yellow) one will find that information which states that the survey plat was made for the US Secret Service, as well as the date December 5, 1963.

However, over in the left center bottom (in red), one will find the revision date which shows "2/7/64", and of which I have posted multiple times on this forum.

Additionally, the last shot impact shown IS NOT the impact for the Z313 shot. It is in fact the impact location for the third/last/final shot as determined by the SS as well as the FBI, and which impact location was at survey stationing 4+95, which placed it some 30-feet farther down Elm St. than the Z313 impact which was at survey stationing 4+65.3.

This, third shot impact location happens to be directly in front of James Altgens position/location (which I will address later).

The Second shot impact as shown on this survey plat IS NOT the Z313 impact. It is in fact an "imaginary" impact location as determined by the FBI in their attempt to sale this bill of goods. This, the second shot location, as shown on the survey plat, happens to be some 22.5 prior to the true Z313 impact location, and is well prior to JFK having even passed the location of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill.

Thomas H. Purvis · March 31, 2009

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4074-001.gif

This! The FBI/aka Shaneyfelt; Specter; Shyster; & Company survey plat is, and will remain, the survey plat as generated during the 2/7/64 FBI assassination re-enactment.

1. The impact point for the first shot fired, remained the exact same as the true SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63.

2. The impact point for the third shot fired, remained the exact same (stationing 4+95) as the true SS Survey plat.

3. The FBI made the Z313 impact completely disappear and moved it's impact back up the street some 22.5 feet and were telling everyone that it was the point at which JBC was hit, and that JFK was hit in the head down at the stationing 4+95 location.

As stated previously (multiple times) this lie did not fly. For a variety of reasons, the Z313 impact could not be made to completely disappear.

Answer, quite simple:

Make the third/last/final shot disappear, and then blame the screwed up survey plat on the US Secret Service.

(see problem resolution flow-chart) Make one problem disappear/hide it, and blame another problem on someone else.

http://www.unp.co.in/f44/flowchart-for-pro...resolution-208/

thusly, NO PROBLEM!

The WC did a superior job of hiding the actuall SS Survey Plat, and then blaming the screwed up one (which is actually a result of the FBI's first attempt at a lie) on them.

And, needless to say, it has fooled many.

However, the SS Assassination re-enactment video which was once available, should have clearly demonstrated to all that the survey plat which is a topic of this discussion and the locations where the SS placed the shot impact cones into the street, are not the same positions/locations.

(See "Bonehead of the Year Award")

P.S. As one can see, the "Revision Date" block has mysteriously been cropped off the Dallas version of the survey plat.

Exactlly who here is of the misguided opinion that they are dealing with amateur's in obfuscation?????????

Z-frame numbering and Gary Murr

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment