The Zapruder Film Provenance

[William Kelly]

Some time ago people were looking at Z film copies of copies and coming up with a chrome revolver in Bill Greer's hand.

Josiah Thompson

Censored and misleading summaries of eyewitness testimony in Six Seconds in Dallas

"How the hell can we use a witness who saw it happening a way it couldn't have happened?"

Josiah Thompson. Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (London: Pan Books Ltd, 1988), p.185.

Six Seconds In Dallas (Bernard Geis, 1967), Appendix A, "Master List of Assassination Witnesses": Witness Austin Miller, witness 96, p.262:

Location: RR overpass

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: 2 & 3

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/22/63

Total time of shots: "few seconds"

References: 6H223-227; 19H485; 24H217; Archives CD 205, p.27

Remarks: Saw "smoke or steam" coming from a group of trees N. of Elm; saw shot hit street past car

Inspect the first testimony cited by Thompson and you find Miller not offering the following opinion on the origin of the shots on Elm St:

Mr. Belin: "Where did the shots sound like they came from?"

Miller: "Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,"6WCH225

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page225.php

Unscrupulous coves, these people who quote eyewitness testimony accurately.

Not that you would know, of course, having sought systematically to expunge any testimony you found inconvenient.

Well, it didn't take long for people to start arguing over the content of the film, did it?

And

Paul,

I have to take exception to your characterization of TT, if I read you right, as over the years, decades now, I've found TT to be an exceptionally good mind to bounce ideas off of, get precise answers from, and to try to determine the best way to proceed to our mutual goal of getting to the total truth. He was there, he had access, he knew all the original researchers - God Bless them!, and he is still here with us to continue the quest for the truth.

As you have pointed out, Doug Horne does explore the eyewitness and earwitness reports of a gun being fired from within the car, and I'm sure it will be used to discredit him, but that will come with the territory.

TT has also stuck his neck out on sensitive issues and has been called on it many times, but to his credit he keeps coming back.

I've tried to post Doug Horne's take on Six Seconds on the Six Seconds thread, but both times I've posted it Prof. Fetzer has stepped on it, intent on keeping up his now one-sided debate with TT.

I thought it was a great tribute to John Simpkin for sponsoring such a forum that not only could include the Great Fetzer-TT debate, but also bring in David Lifton for good measure.

Horne says at one point that it has been difficult to deal with people with great egos, like Fetzer, Livingstone and somebody else, but Livingstone interviewed now dead witnesses and Fetzer published anthologies that included some very significant chapters, and he couldn't have written his book without referencing them.

Doug Horne says that both TT's Six Seconds and David Lifton's Best Evidence were paradigum changers, that made you look at the assassination from a different perspective than ever before, and that made it possible to move on to the next level and helped get to where we are now.

And it is a great tribute to John Simkin for hosting a forum that includes both of these paradigum shifters - TT and DL, and bringing them together and asking and trying to answer mutual questions of interest all takes the whole effort to another level.

And it isn't an accident, as Doug Horne writes as another one of his influences, The Nature of Scientific Revolutions, which I too remember as a Paradigum shifter in my education at Dayton, in which the study of scientific revolutions indicate that it is those who approach the question and subject from an entirelly different angle that allows for the breakout of a new revolution in any field of inquiry.

I don't know whether to attribute it to Doug Horne alone, but there is a new line in the sand, and those "Conspiracy Theorists" who want to continue the debate with the "Lone-Nuts" and promote the idea that "we'll never know," will be left in the dust as others firgure it all out.

And God Bless TT and DL for sticking around and staying in the game, even if you disagree.

Don't we live in interesting times?

BK

[John Dolva]

Pamela, ''Tocsin'' (MSC files, (which btw in an issue, includes a transcript and commentary on the Oswald radio ineterviews)) reports in early 65 that Mark Lane from NY was leading the Oswald didn't do it.. Do you know whether any person involved in the showing of this film in the theatre was in any way associated with Lane, or recollect anything more about the showing? Who ran the Cinema, for example?

Also, Vince*, can you confirm that Sorrels and Harry D, Holmes spent time in a late night ''thumbing through'' the Z film 11/22-23/63 (presumably one of the SS copies)?

_______________________

EDIT : (just as an example.) In the late nineties, I worked in a place where for many years people had stored things under a building. One task was to take it to the dump. Amongst them were weathered cardboard boxes containing film posters and other movie related articles, including some film strips. These were all related to a cinema covering a period from the sixties to the seventies. Obviously someone working in the cinema during the time of employment had collected them during the period of employment there. I suspect this is not unusual. IE : re NY showing : material, perhaps even spools, could exist in storage somewhere, perhaps on site, or in any emplyees possession, possibly unbeknownst to them. (the items I found were not sorted in any way indicating perhaps a ''grab anything'' without regard for what (eg a huge two part mint condition ''Death in Venice'' poster, and many minor items of no real interest)).

EDIT 2 : *Palamara

Edited January 7, 2010 by John Dolva

[Don Jeffries]

One should really be able to see, with your own eyes, that the Zapruder Film, the Backyard Photos are faked; and that the Secret Service did nothing when the shots rang out.

Very well put, Peter. Many things in this case are quite simple. One of them is the total failure of JFK's Secret Service detail on November 22, 1963. It is indisputable that none of them did their job that day. Now, you can rationalize why they didn't react, argue that "they're only human," etc., but you can't deny the reality that they didn't respond to the sound of gunfire. To many of us, that has always been one of the single greatest indicators of conspiracy.

I also grow weary of hearing "we'll never know." This sounds much like the old LN line about "no new evidence," to which critics like Mark Lane replied, "What's wrong with the old evidence?" There are some important things we DO know:

- All available evidence indicates Oswald was not a good shot

- No one places him on the sixth floor window, and eyewitness testimony places him on another floor 10-15 minutes prior to the assassination.

- No one can establish a motive for him- on the contrary, the available evidence indicates he liked JFK

- The only legal affidavits attesting to the weapon found on the sixth floor identify it as a German Mauser

- The weapon alleged to be owned by Oswald was an Italian Mannlicher Carcano

- Serious discrephancies exist about the order of this weapon, as well as the A. Hidell alias allegedly used by Oswald

- There are astonishing problems with the chain of possession for all official evidence in this case, as well as the Tippit case

- Most eyewitnesses claimed the shots came from the front, grassy knoll area, and this is bolstered by the existing photographic evidence showing people rushing towards that area in the aftermath of the shooting

- The holes in JFK's coat and shirt, buttressed by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's FBI report, all place the non-fatal wound some 5 inches down on JFK's back, far too low to have caused an exit wound to the throat

- The bullet allegedly causing all the non-fatal wounds in JFK and Connally was virtually undamaged, while the Commission's own evidence showed identical test bullets as severely deformed when hitting merely a wrist bone

- As Harold Weisberg noted, JFK received an autopsy "unworthy of a Bowery bum," and because of that virtually everything about the medical evidence is suspect

- Oswald was killed while in police custody, in spite of being "guarded" by over 70 police officers

- Oswald's public comments indicate he was frustrated over not being represented by a lawyer and what he termed unfair police lineups, while he maintained a steadfast claim of innocence

- The official "investigation" was laughably bogus; the FBI and Dallas Police failed to identify crucial witnesses like the Umbrella Man and the Babushka Lady and the Warren Commission failed to call some of the most important figures imaginable to testify, while padding its mostly meaningless record with page after unncessary page of irrelevant blather from "witnesses" like Oswald's infant babysitter

I could go on, but you get the point. This has always been a classic, textbook case of conspiracy. As Vincent Salandria has deftly noted, this was not an intricate coverup- on the contrary, a ten year old child can see through the holes in the official story. This was also not a "benign" coverup- from Bundy's assurance to the cabinet members flying back from Hawaii that there was no conspiracy, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, when the "investigation" hadn't even begun, to Katzenbach's plea to censor the inquiry issued moments after Oswald was shot by Ruby, to Hoover purposefully seeing that copies of documents released by the FBI were photocopied over and over to decrease their clarity, powerful figures of that time were intent on covering up the truth about what happened in Dealey Plaza. The only "confusing" aspects are due to the glaring omissions and destruction of evidence in the official record.

[Josiah Thompson]

Thank you for this post, Bill. Sometimes the tribal answers to questions and almost by rote attacks on members of the other tribe, bore the hell out of me. I sometimes wonder why I even take the time to look at this site. Then I have the kind of exchange with David Lifton that I had and recognize that old campaigners always have new things to teach one another. I very much appreciate you calling attention to a level of discourse here that is truly important. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Some time ago people were looking at Z film copies of copies and coming up with a chrome revolver in Bill Greer's hand.

Josiah Thompson

Censored and misleading summaries of eyewitness testimony in Six Seconds in Dallas

"How the hell can we use a witness who saw it happening a way it couldn't have happened?"

Josiah Thompson. Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (London: Pan Books Ltd, 1988), p.185.

Six Seconds In Dallas (Bernard Geis, 1967), Appendix A, "Master List of Assassination Witnesses": Witness Austin Miller, witness 96, p.262:

Location: RR overpass

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: 2 & 3

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/22/63

Total time of shots: "few seconds"

References: 6H223-227; 19H485; 24H217; Archives CD 205, p.27

Remarks: Saw "smoke or steam" coming from a group of trees N. of Elm; saw shot hit street past car

Inspect the first testimony cited by Thompson and you find Miller not offering the following opinion on the origin of the shots on Elm St:

Mr. Belin: "Where did the shots sound like they came from?"

Miller: "Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,"6WCH225

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page225.php

Unscrupulous coves, these people who quote eyewitness testimony accurately.

Not that you would know, of course, having sought systematically to expunge any testimony you found inconvenient.

Paul,

I have to take exception to your characterization, as over the years, decades now, I've found TT to be an exceptionally good mind to bounce ideas off of, get precise answers from, and to try to determine the best way to proceed to our mutual goal of getting to the total truth. He was there, he had access, he knew all the original researchers - God Bless them!, and he is still here with us to continue the quest for the truth.

As you have pointed out, Doug Horne does explore the eyewitness and earwitness reports of a gun being fired from within the car, and I'm sure it will be used to discredit him, but that will come with the territory.

TT has also stuck his neck out on sensitive issues and has been called on it many times, but to his credit he keeps coming back.

I've tried to post Doug Horne's take on Six Seconds on the Six Seconds thread, but both times I've posted it Prof. Fetzer has stepped on it, intent on keeping up his now one-sided debate with TT.

I thought it was a great tribute to John Simpkin for sponsoring such a forum that not only could include the Great Fetzer-TT debate, but also bring in David Lifton for good measure.

Horne says at one point that it has been difficult to deal with people with great egos, like Fetzer, Livingstone and somebody else, but Livingstone interviewed now dead witnesses and Fetzer published anthologies that included some very significant chapters, and he couldn't have written his book without referencing them.

Doug Horne says that both TT's Six Seconds and David Lifton's Best Evidence were paradigum changers, that made you look at the assassination from a different perspective than ever before, and that made it possible to move on to the next level and helped get to where we are now.

And it is a great tribute to John Simkin for hosting a forum that includes both of these paradigum shifters - TT and DL, and bringing them together and asking and trying to answer mutual questions of interest all takes the whole effort to another level.

And it isn't an accident, as Doug Horne writes as another one of his influences, The Nature of Scientific Revolutions, which I too remember as a Paradigum shifter in my education at Dayton, in which the study of scientific revolutions indicate that it is those who approach the question and subject from an entirelly different angle that allows for the breakout of a new revolution in any field of inquiry.

I don't know whether to attribute it to Doug Horne alone, but there is a new line in the sand, and those "Conspiracy Theorists" who want to continue the debate with the "Lone-Nuts" and promote the idea that "we'll never know," will be left in the dust as others firgure it all out.

And God Bless TT and DL for sticking around and staying in the game, even if you disagree.

Don't we live in interesting times?

BK

[David G. Healy]

Bill,

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't trying to hijack your thread! I just wanted to be sure everyone was clear about what kind of copy the Hollywood group viewed. It's important because the first line of response to the group's findings is going to be that everything looks faked on a fifth generation copy. Horne makes the strongest case for the technical expertise of Sydney and the others, but Zavada has examined the actual film with a densitometer and microscope. So the first thing we're going to hear is that it's not surprising to learn that someone looked at a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy and determined that it was a copy.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry,

Now how did Roland Zavada get that Zapruder film under a microscope? Was the 35mm a 2nd-3rd generation film on which he did his measurements ? Given the current Z-film alteration debate it could of been a 4-6 generations from the original. All sorts of possibilities. Now can you prove the provenance of the film Zavada inspected, measured, slid under a microscope? I doubt you can Jer!

And, 8mm Z-film gamma issues is a dead horse argument... Further, lets nail down the date and place when the measuring feats were performed? Who was present? And, your copy double talk is duly noted Jer.... Gawd I love lawyers, even retired ones whom can't prove the extant film currently housed at NARA is in FACT the original in-camera Zapruder film, shot on Nov 22nd 1963....

..."In Chapter 14 of IARRB Volume IV, Doug Horne does get into the micro analysis of anomalies, describing each one in detail, and adding a new one to the mix – the edge of the Stemmons Freeway sign, which was recently uncovered by Sydney Wilkerson, who works on Hollywood movies. Sydney bought some first generation large 35 mm stills of the Z-film from the NARA and with a team of professional Hollywood special effects producers, has examined the film closely. They are preparing a yet to be released report on their study which could include positive scientific proof of tampering, or at the very least will show how the film could have been tampered with, - eliminating the brief stop that over 50 witnesses claim they saw, fudging up JFK's head wound to indicate a large frontal exit wound, and eliminating the blowout of the back of the head."...

Just to keep things technically accurate ... It is impossible to purchase first generation copies of the Zapruder film or frames of the Zapruder film from the NARA. The NARA does not drag out the original every time someone requests a copy. The NARA made archival prints of the Zapruder film and all copies are generated from the archival prints. Therefore, under the very best circumstances, Sydney is examining a copy of a copy and may well be examining a copy of a copy of a copy.

Best to you,

Jerry

Hey Jerry, Good to hear from you.

While I'd like to keep this thread focused on the film's chain of custody and not the conent or anamolies, certainly making a 35 mm copy of the original from the NARA qualifies as a chain of custody issue. While I might have misstated what I thought happened, here's what Doug Horne says, with the approrpriate sentences hightlighted:

Addendum: The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood

It is misleading to claim that scientific advances and scholarly experiments can causeall photo fakes to be unmasked. Questions about authenticity remain. Many photosthat once were considered genuine have recently been determined to be faked.

—Dino Brugioni of NPIC, the authorof Photofakery: The History andTechniques of Photographic Deceptionand Manipulation (1999).

Synchronicity sometimes plays an important role in human affairs; things occasionally come together in such a way, and with such timing, that the circumstances could not be more fortuitous, or more beneficial. Some would call it fate; others would call it luck; and I prefer to call it synchronicity, which falls somewhere in-between fate (or destiny) and pure luck. Consider the events described below, and you will see what I mean.

At precisely the time when I was 99% finished with my Zapruder film chapter, and thought there was nothing remaining to do but a bit of word smithing and fact checking, Good Fortune descended upon me in a way that was almost too good to be true; and yet, if not for my earlier involvement with Zapruder film issues while a member of the ARRB staff, none of this would have happened to me, and someone else would be writing about these experiences today.

On June 2, 2009 I was notified by researcher and author Dick Russell (author of The Man Who Knew Too Much and On the Trail of the JFK Assassins) that Jim Marrs (author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy) was trying to contact me on behalf of a personal friend of his who was involved in a Zapruder film research effort. I subsequently found out through both Dick Russell and Jim Marrs that researcher Ed Sherry in Florida (Meeting Coordinator for the South Florida Research Group) had put out an “all points bulletin” for me in his blog on behalf of Jim Marrs’ friend in the Los Angeles greater metropolitan area. Because I am a semi-recluse, and was also industriously trying to finish my manuscript, normally I would not have been interested, but there were two reasons why this occasion was different: (1) Jim Marrs personally vouched for the character of the person seeking me out, and (2) she was conducting Zapruder film research. Having been deeply immersed in Zapruder film issues for the preceding three months, I was amazed at how fortuitous the timing was. I decided to contact Jim Marrs’ friend in Los Angeles at the e-mail address he provided to me.

On June 3, 2009 I exchanged introductory e-mails with one Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood—specifically, in the marketing of postproduction services within the motion picture film industry. She has decades of experience under her belt in dealing with editors, experts in film restoration, and film studio executives. She lives and breathes the professional culture of the motion picture film industry, and has working relationships with many of the major players involved in post-production in Hollywood. When she first introduced herself to me she insisted that she was neither a researcher, author, nor a historian; and in spite of her

1353

continued self-deprecation, I have explained to her on numerous occasions since that day that she is now indeed a JFK assassination researcher, by simple virtue of what she is doing, whether she ever publishes a word or not! We are what we do, and what Sydney Wilkinson has done is truly extraordinary.

Sydney revealed to me in short order that she had purchased a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives. She did so purely for research purposes, to satisfy her own curiosity about whether or not the extant film in the Archives was the authentic out-of-camera original, or whether it was an altered film masquerading as the original. She had already purchased a copy of the Zavada report from the National Archives and knew its contents backwards and forwards, and was also familiar with the interviews of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC conducted by the ARRB staff in 1997. She was aware of my former role as the ARRB’s liaison with Kodak and Rollie Zavada, and was also very familiar with the existing literature about the film’s possible alteration. In short, she was simply a very curious American citizen who, out of both natural curiosity and a sense of patriotism, wanted to know the truth about this famous film.

She had literally “put her money where her mouth was” by forking out $ 795.90 for a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from a source whose honesty and integrity could not be challenged by any future researchers: the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print. She wanted a dupe negative because her intent from the beginning was to subject the Zapruder film to the serious, professional scrutiny of Hollywood film professionals in an attempt to resolve the ongoing debate about its authenticity. Sydney’s attitude going into this effort was similar to my own attitude about the Zapruder film when I began working for the ARRB in 1995; she was very curious about the issues that had been raised about the Zapruder film’s authenticity, and simply wanted to know the answer, one way or the other.

I was stunned by the simplicity and power of the concept behind her ongoing research effort: only Hollywood visual effects technicians or other film professionals familiar with the optical effects techniques of the 1960s would be truly qualified to say whether or not there was evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film’s image content! While Rollie Zavada was a film chemist and a Kodak project manager (and was eminently qualified to study film density and edge print), he had no practical experience with the creation of motion picture visual effects, and I therefore viewed him as unqualified to make a final determination as to whether or not the Zapruder film was an altered film. (The ARRB’s senior management understood this also, which was why he was not asked to comment upon the film’s image content in his limited authenticity study.) I immediately wondered:

Why hadn’t anyone ever attempted this before? If anyone had attempted it before 2003 (the year that Monaco in San Francisco made the Forensic Copy of the extant film for NARA), the only tool available for study in Hollywood would have been a multi-generation bootleg copy of one of the Moses Weitzman blowups (from 8 mm to 35 mm) made circa 1968; because the provenance of the bootleg copy would have been suspect, so would any results obtained from such a study. If anyone had attempted this subsequent to 2003, neither Sydney nor I was aware of such an effort. Intuitively, I felt that this was a “first.” A big first......

Edited January 6, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Karl Kinaski]

I believe that the limousine driven by native Irishman William Greer, Methodist, slowed down instead of speeding up after the shots rang out, thus enabling the shots that killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the United States on November 22, 1963.

Except that the late Mr. Greer was born in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, so it might be more accurate to refer to him as a native Britisher.

I always thought, Greer brought the limo to a halt to give the SS-men of the follow-up car the opportunity to get onto the Lincoln-Limo, and protect JFK with their body's...but the SS-men didn't move...following an order by Emory Roberts..."Don't move!"

To me Greer did the right thing, while Roberts order, and behavior is more than questionable...

KK

[Paul Rigby]

Paul,

I have to take exception to your characterization, as over the years, decades now, I've found TT to be an exceptionally good mind to bounce ideas off of, get precise answers from, and to try to determine the best way to proceed to our mutual goal of getting to the total truth. He was there, he had access, he knew all the original researchers - God Bless them!, and he is still here with us to continue the quest for the truth.

As you have pointed out, Doug Horne does explore the eyewitness and earwitness reports of a gun being fired from within the car, and I'm sure it will be used to discredit him, but that will come with the territory.

TT has also stuck his neck out on sensitive issues and has been called on it many times, but to his credit he keeps coming back.

I've tried to post Doug Horne's take on Six Seconds on the Six Seconds thread, but both times I've posted it Prof. Fetzer has stepped on it, intent on keeping up his now one-sided debate with TT.

I thought it was a great tribute to John Simpkin for sponsoring such a forum that not only could include the Great Fetzer-TT debate, but also bring in David Lifton for good measure.

Horne says at one point that it has been difficult to deal with people with great egos, like Fetzer, Livingstone and somebody else, but Livingstone interviewed now dead witnesses and Fetzer published anthologies that included some very significant chapters, and he couldn't have written his book without referencing them.

Doug Horne says that both TT's Six Seconds and David Lifton's Best Evidence were paradigum changers, that made you look at the assassination from a different perspective than ever before, and that made it possible to move on to the next level and helped get to where we are now.

And it is a great tribute to John Simkin for hosting a forum that includes both of these paradigum shifters - TT and DL, and bringing them together and asking and trying to answer mutual questions of interest all takes the whole effort to another level.

And it isn't an accident, as Doug Horne writes as another one of his influences, The Nature of Scientific Revolutions, which I too remember as a Paradigum shifter in my education at Dayton, in which the study of scientific revolutions indicate that it is those who approach the question and subject from an entirelly different angle that allows for the breakout of a new revolution in any field of inquiry.

I don't know whether to attribute it to Doug Horne alone, but there is a new line in the sand, and those "Conspiracy Theorists" who want to continue the debate with the "Lone-Nuts" and promote the idea that "we'll never know," will be left in the dust as others firgure it all out.

And God Bless TT and DL for sticking around and staying in the game, even if you disagree.

Don't we live in interesting times?

BK

Bill,

Some agreeable and appropriate sentiments, not least in regard to Doug Horne for provoking, and John/this forum for hosting, such a robust debate, but we are a long way apart on our history of research in the case, and the role of Thompson within it.

You offer a rosy vision of a continuous tradition of honest striving moving us ever upwards and on: To me, this is the old Whig heresy, writ small. By contrast, I see an effort entirely in keeping with CIA tradition, one deliberately and systematically subverted by penetration and red herrings, a process that is, as far as I can see, alive and flourishing.

The problem is that what I stated is true. This may be inconvenient, uncomfortable, and/or regrettable, but it nevertheless remains a fact. SSID systematically suppresses testimony that points to:

1) an in-car shooting

2) to the limo stop

3) to the subsequent activities of the SS (in both checking the damage done to Kennedy and leading the false trail up the knoll)

4) to the actual, and very different, distribution of witnesses on Elm St to that portrayed in the Z film

5) to the true location and nature of the wounds to Kennedy

6) to the glaring contradictions in Zapruder’s various testimonies

Here’s a classic example of what I mean, in this instance, in support of claim 4):

Witness 66, p.259, in Thompson’s Six Seconds table is Mrs Charles Hester. Here is Thompson’s summary of her evidence in the, by now, familiar format:

Location: N. side of Elm St. on slope

No. of shots: 2

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/25/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: 24H523

Remarks: Thinks she and her husband were in the direct line of fire

Here is Mrs Hester’s full statement to the FBI, from the Hearings volume and page cited by Thompson, as made on 24 November 1963:

Mrs CHARLES HESTER, 2619 Keyhold Street, Irving, Texas, advised that sometime around 12:30 p.m., on November 22, 1963, she and her husband were standing along the street at a place immediately preceding the underpass on Elm Street, where President Kennedy was shot. Mrs HESTER advised she heard two loud noises which sounded like gunshots, and she saw President KENNEDY slump in the seat of the car he was riding in. Her husband grabbed then grabbed her and shoved her to the ground. Shortly thereafter they went across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter. She stated that she believes she and her husband actually had been in the direct line of fire. She did not see anyone with a gun when the shots were fired and stated she could not furnish any information as to exactly where the shots came from. After the President’s car had pulled away from the scene, she and her husband proceeded to their car and left the area as she was very upset.”

In other words, Thompson’s summary of Mrs Hester’s location and statement is “erroneous” in the extreme. An honest version would read:

Location: S. side of Elm St. close to underpass

No. of shots: 2

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/24/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: 24H523

Remarks: Accompanied by husband; thinks she and her husband were in the direct line of fire

The purpose of furnishing us with a bogus film record of the assassination was, in large measure, to stop us looking at what the witnesses said. Thompson not merely fails to challenge the fraudulent film record, but instead actively works to buttress it, by whatever means necessary. As I have repeatedly insisted and demonstrated, his methods are disgraceful, whether considered from the dry perspective of mere scholarship, or within the broader confines of the most important debate yet waged about the death of American democracy.

What am I to do, pretend otherwise?

Paul

[William Kelly]

Well we know that the Zapruder film, either the original twice or the original and a copy were at the NPIC at two different times in order for selected frames to be enlarged and prints made for briefing boards.

Dino Brugioni and Homer McMahon are both interesting men, Dino being an analysist while McMahon was a color film technician.

It's interesting how we came to learn about McMahon.

When the ARRB held one of its only public hearings it was on the Zapruder film and carried by CSPAN, a program that was seen by the wife of Ben Hunter, who worked on the Zapruder film as an assistant to McMahon at NPIC.

Hunter's wife contacted the ARRB and told them about her husband's role in making the film prints and briefing boards at the NPIC the weekend of the assassination, and it was Hunter who led the ARRB to McMahon, a reluctant but believable witness.

Brugioni said he participated in the session at the NPIC that made copies of the Z-film stills for a set of briefing boards that were used by his boss, Art Lundahl, who used the boards to brief CIA director John McCone.

McMahon and Hunter didn't know who the briefing boards they made were used to brief, but they usually prepared the briefing material for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Recon Office (NRO) and the POTUS (& National Security Council).

While Brugioni used his experience at the NPIC to write a book about the Cuban Missile Crisis ("Eyeball to Eyeball"), McMahon also said he worked on the briefing boards during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he wasn't going to talk about that because the CIA only released him to talk to the ARRB about the JFK assassination records.

Brugioni said that when he discovered some of the briefing boards he helped make in a closset (four still exist today and are at the NARA), his boss was upset that there were any at all.

McMahon said that when they were finished making their prints and copies in the other briefing board session at NPIC, they didn't classify the trash like they usually do because "they took the trash with them."

While I have yet to see the 4 NPIC briefing boards made from the Z-film stills that survive and are at NARA, I did find some of the NPIC briefing boards that were made during the Cuban Missile Crisis, including the map that JFK talks about on the one of the first tape recorded meetings.

The map and Sidney Graybeal's recollections of the briefing give a good background on how these briefing boards were made at NPIC and used to brief the president and policy makers.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2010/01...iefing-map.html

Edited January 7, 2010 by William Kelly

[Bernice Moore]

Cool Jerry. Sounds good to me.

Tink

Hello Tink!

Yes, every generation adds grain and contrast to the image and the Zapruder film was high contrast to begin with by the nature of the film itself. It will be interesting to see what the Hollywood group has to say about the contrast issue because I suspect that's why they believe that the back of the President's head has been pasted over - it looks like a featureless black patch by this generation. The real question is what does the original look like under high magnification and proper illumination.

If they can't get to the original, I think the 4x5s that MPI took for the DVD project would be a much better copy than what they're working with now or the Life 4x5s might even be better. So maybe we should try to get Gary Mack together with Doug Horne and see what they can work out. At the least, short of examining the original, everyone who knows what they're doing is going to want to check the Hollywood group findings against the earlier and better 4x5s.

Best to you Tink - glad to see you posting again.

Jerry

Hi Bill and Jerry,

"Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print.."

Wow! A fifth generation copy! Isn't the image quite degraded as one goes from copy to copy of copy to copy of copy of copy to copy of copy of copy of copy? Aren't better copies than this available from other sources... for example, the DVD made by the Zapruder family a few years ago. I can understand why one would want to use a copy certified as a copy by NARA. But a 5th generation copy? Some time ago people were looking at Z film copies of copies and coming up with a chrome revolver in Bill Greer's hand.

Josiah Thompson

She had literally “put her money where her mouth was” by forking out $ 795.90 for a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from a source whose honesty and integrity could not be challenged by any future researchers: the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).B..

[Jerry Logan]

Cool Jerry. Sounds good to me.

Tink

Hello Tink!

Yes, every generation adds grain and contrast to the image and the Zapruder film was high contrast to begin with by the nature of the film itself. It will be interesting to see what the Hollywood group has to say about the contrast issue because I suspect that's why they believe that the back of the President's head has been pasted over - it looks like a featureless black patch by this generation. The real question is what does the original look like under high magnification and proper illumination.

If they can't get to the original, I think the 4x5s that MPI took for the DVD project would be a much better copy than what they're working with now or the Life 4x5s might even be better. So maybe we should try to get Gary Mack together with Doug Horne and see what they can work out. At the least, short of examining the original, everyone who knows what they're doing is going to want to check the Hollywood group findings against the earlier and better 4x5s.

Best to you Tink - glad to see you posting again.

Jerry

Hi Bill and Jerry,

"Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print.."

Wow! A fifth generation copy! Isn't the image quite degraded as one goes from copy to copy of copy to copy of copy of copy to copy of copy of copy of copy? Aren't better copies than this available from other sources... for example, the DVD made by the Zapruder family a few years ago. I can understand why one would want to use a copy certified as a copy by NARA. But a 5th generation copy? Some time ago people were looking at Z film copies of copies and coming up with a chrome revolver in Bill Greer's hand.

Josiah Thompson

She had literally “put her money where her mouth was” by forking out $ 795.90 for a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from a source whose honesty and integrity could not be challenged by any future researchers: the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).B..

Thank you Bernice. That quote was in Bill's second post. However, I was discussing the implications of Horne's very next paragraph and what it means to work with a fifth generation copy:

"Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print. She wanted a dupe negative because her intent from the beginning was to subject the Zapruder film to the serious, professional scrutiny of Hollywood film professionals in an attempt to resolve the ongoing debate about its authenticity. Sydney’s attitude going into this effort was similar to my own attitude about the Zapruder film when I began working for the ARRB in 1995; she was very curious about the issues that had been raised about the Zapruder film’s authenticity, and simply wanted to know the answer, one way or the other."

Best to you,

Jerry

[Bernice Moore]

thanks Jerry what came to mind and I am pointing out and hoping that this use of a 5th generation copy wshe bought will not be or tried to be used and given down the road as a ''W'ell never know'' excuse because of such...but i already am getting that iffy...we shall see as all progresses..thanks take care..b

[Jerry Logan]

thanks Jerry what came to mind and I am pointing out and hoping that this use of a 5th generation copy wshe bought will not be or tried to be used and given down the road as a ''W'ell never know'' excuse because of such...but i already am getting that iffy...we shall see as all progresses..thanks take care..b

That's a good question Bernice. I don't think there are going to be a lot of questions about authenticity or enhancements like the MPI or Costella versions.

Depending on what they actually did and how they reached their conclusions there may be debate about what's in the original film v. what's in a 5th generation copy.

Copying always adds artifacts and copying five times adds a lot of artifacts. So the question will be "have they mistaken copying artifacts for alteration artifacts.

I don't think it will lead to a "we'll never know" situation because we do have the original film to check things against. So for example, if Sydney thinks the back of

the President's head looks like a featureless matte because someone pasted over it, and if someone like Craig or myself says no, that's just contrast buildup from the copying process,

then someone will be able to go to the original and see if the matte's there in the original as well as the copy. So, at least in principle, there's a way to settle the argument.

Best to you,

Jerry

Edited January 7, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Bernice Moore]

THANKS JERRY BUT I DO BELIEVE I SHALL WAIT AND SEE...I CAN ALMOST HEAR IT NOW...ARTIFACTS YADA YADA THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS...PERHAPS I AM BECOMING SOMEWHAT JADED BEING IN THIS AND READING TOO MUCH AND INTO IT TOO LONG, AND THAT CAN HAPPEN, I AM SIMPLY HOPING HER WORK AND THEIRS WILL BE GIVEN AN HONEST HEARING AND REAL STUDY BEFORE BEING JUMPED ON BUT..SOMETHING TELLS ME BUT..SEEN IT IN THE PAST MANY TIMES..WITH MANY A NEW STUDY AND IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN..I HAVE NO DOUBT AGAIN, I SHALL WAIT AND SEE..THANKS AGAIN...B

Edited January 7, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Jerry Logan]

THANKS JERRY BUT I DO BELIEVE I SHALL WAIT AND SEE...I CAN ALMOST HEAR IT NOW...ARTIFACTS YADA YADA THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS...PERHAPS I AM BECOMING SOMEWHAT JADED BEING IN THIS AND READING TOO MUCH AND INTO IT TOO LONG, AND THAT CAN HAPPEN, I AM SIMPLY HOPING HER WORK AND THEIRS WILL BE GIVEN AN HONEST HEARING AND REAL STUDY BEFORE BEING JUMPED ON BUT..SOMETHING TELLS ME BUT..SEEN IT IN THE PAST MANY TIMES..WITH MANY A NEW STUDY AND IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN..I HAVE NO DOUBT AGAIN, I SHALL WAIT AND SEE..THANKS AGAIN...B

Bernice,

I'm always happy to exchange ideas with you. You have an amazing store of information! I know it must get discouraging for you at times but here's a thought. By definition, every conspiracy theory cannot be correct. If the Cubans did it then the Secret Service didn't, nor did the mafia or the CIA. It's true that we're having some difficulty finding the right theory - but Fetzer, Rigby and White (even Lifton) can be dead wrong and it won't matter and it won't mean there wasn't a conspiracy. It just means that the truth is out there in the other 95%. There's lots of good work being done that has nothing to do with the Zapruder film so I wouldn't live or die by Doug Horne's 150 pages on Zapruder.

Best to you,

Jerry

[Bernice Moore]

'Jerry Logan' date='Jan 7 2010, 08:18 AM' post='177899']

THANKS JERRY BUT I DO BELIEVE I SHALL WAIT AND SEE...I CAN ALMOST HEAR IT NOW...ARTIFACTS YADA YADA THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS...PERHAPS I AM BECOMING SOMEWHAT JADED BEING IN THIS AND READING TOO MUCH AND INTO IT TOO LONG, AND THAT CAN HAPPEN, I AM SIMPLY HOPING HER WORK AND THEIRS WILL BE GIVEN AN HONEST HEARING AND REAL STUDY BEFORE BEING JUMPED ON BUT..SOMETHING TELLS ME BUT..SEEN IT IN THE PAST MANY TIMES..WITH MANY A NEW STUDY AND IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN..I HAVE NO DOUBT AGAIN, I SHALL WAIT AND SEE..THANKS AGAIN...B

Bernice,

I'm always happy to exchange ideas with you. You have an amazing store of information! I know it must get discouraging for you at times but here's a thought. By definition, every conspiracy theory cannot be correct. If the Cubans did it then the Secret Service didn't, nor did the mafia or the CIA. It's true that we're having some difficulty finding the right theory - but Fetzer, Rigby and White (even Lifton) can be dead wrong and it won't matter and it won't mean there wasn't a conspiracy. It just means that the truth is out there in the other 95%. There's lots of good work being done that has nothing to do with the Zapruder film so I wouldn't live or die by Doug Horne's 150 pages on Zapruder.

Best to you,

Jerry

THANKS FOR ANOTHER REPLY..BUT IMO I DO THINK THAT WITH ALL THE INFORMATION WITHIN MR.HORNE'S WONDERFUL SET OF BOOKS..NOT JUST THE ZAPRUDER BUT ALL THE INFO THAT HE HAS BROUGHT US PERHAPS OUT OF THE WILDERNESS WHERE ALL SEEMED TO BE PRETTY WELL STUCK.FOR SOME YEARS ...I REALIZE THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW VERY GOOD BOOKS IN THE PAST YEAR AS WELL BUT NOT WITH HIS CONTACTS ACCESS TO FILES DOCS AND ALL..AND IN THE SAME AMOUNT A 5 BOOK SET AN ENORMOUS ENDEAVOUR THAT IS SO APPRECIATED BY SO MANY HEAR HEAR......IT IS AMAZING WHAT HE HAS DONE REALLY WHEN THINKING OF IT..IN SOME WAY THE ANSWER TO THE W/C (THAT'S WATER CLOSET IN ENGLAND)... AND BETTER STILL BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS THE TRUTH OF WHAT WE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE W/C WAS AN UGLY FAIRY TALE A SCARY ONE...WITH LITTLE TRUTH AND NO HONOR..YES I CALL IT THE RATS NEST THE DUNGEON FILES WHERE THE GREMLIN LIVES AS A GUARDIAN TAKES MUCH TIME AND I SHOULD BE BACK TENDING TO IT SOON AND FILING AND DOWNLOADING IT IS A NEVER ENDING ENDEAVOUR AND I DO ENJOY IT SO...I'M A BEGGAR FOR PUNISHMENT IT SEEMS WHEN YOU ARE AT IT SO LONG I GUESS IT BECOMES NO PUNISHMENT JUST SECOND NATURE AN EVERY DAY OCCURANCE AND I CAN ENJOY GETTING INTO IT ESPECIALLY THE DUNGEONS WTH SUCH AS GREMLINS...AND I AM ALONE IN SOLITUDE WITH NO OTHERS A HIDEAWAY OF SORTS I IMAGINE...AND WITH A CUPPA ALONG SIDE I'M IN.. AND PERHAPS TOTHER CREATURES...ABIDE WITHIN ALSO ONE NEVER KNOWS WHAT ONE WILL FIND..MUCH GARBAGE AT TIMES ALSO I AM AFRAID..I AM A PACK RAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN... :lol:BUT THEN IT COULD BE A SIGN OF GOING ROUND RUDDY BEND AT TIMES IT COULD APPEAR ..LLH.THANKS AGAIN TAKE CARE AND HAVE A GOOD NEW YEAR...B

PLEASE EXCUSE THE CAPS THIS TIME OF NIGHT CANNOT TYPE PROPERLY...B AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY I AM HERE AT THIS TIME OF NIGHT ER...MORNING...WHEN ALL ARE SUPPOSE TO B E SNOOZING..AW WELL SOME DO NOT..THE NIGHT HAWKS.. :oOH AND BTW I DO NOT HAVE A THEORY I NEVER HAVE HAD I STILL AWAIT THE TRUTH ,ONE DAY...TA B..

Edited January 7, 2010 by Bernice Moore