The Zapruder Film Provenance

[David G. Healy]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

[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

Does anyone know if the Z-film Briefing boards are on line anywhere?

Thanks,

BK

[Jerry Logan]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

Well that raises an interesting point David. If you're willing to be serious for brief moment - would you please tell us what, exactly, it would take for someone to prove that the film at NARA is THE in-camera-original.

I'm not setting some trap - I'd really like to know what would convince you. I'm guessing that (1) nothing could convince you or (2) even if it convinced you there's an alterationist answer for it. So that no matter what the test it's no real problem for the true believer.

So there you have it David - a simple question with its agenda right on the surface. Will you provide a direct, straight answer?

Jerry

Edited January 7, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[William Kelly]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

Well that raises an interesting point David. If you're willing to be serious for brief moment - would you please tell us what, exactly, it would take for someone to prove that the film at NARA is THE in-camera-original.

I'm not setting some trap - I'd really like to know what would convince you. I'm guessing that (1) nothing could convince you or (2) even if it convinced you there's an alterationist answer for it. So that no matter what the test it's no real problem for the true believer.

So there you have it David - a simple question with its agenda right on the surface. Will you provide a direct, straight answer?

Jerry

Excuse me for butting in here Jerry, and David, but I think that, as I've said before, each camera has certain unique characterstics, like the barrell of a gun makes ballistic marks that are totally unique to that gun, and using a similar make and model just won't do.

Same holds for manual typewriters that create characteristics that are unique to that specific typewriter, and using a similar make and model just won't hold up in court.

Therefore, if they already did shoot another film through the Zapruder camera and that film is in the archives, then it can be compared to the original z-film and it should match up, not looking at the content, but looking at the similar microscopic lines and marks that each camera makes on the hard copy film.

Am I right about this or am I wrong?

And Jerry, thanks for your intestest in this line of inquiry and I do hope we can generate more information to make better judgments on.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

David?

[Jack White]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

Well that raises an interesting point David. If you're willing to be serious for brief moment - would you please tell us what, exactly, it would take for someone to prove that the film at NARA is THE in-camera-original.

I'm not setting some trap - I'd really like to know what would convince you. I'm guessing that (1) nothing could convince you or (2) even if it convinced you there's an alterationist answer for it. So that no matter what the test it's no real problem for the true believer.

So there you have it David - a simple question with its agenda right on the surface. Will you provide a direct, straight answer?

Jerry

All these commentators who have not read HORNE IV.

Simple. The double8 film WAS SPLIT in Dallas.

When the film reached Hawkeye Works, it was UNSPLIT 16MM.

Case Closed.

Jack

[Jerry Logan]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

Well that raises an interesting point David. If you're willing to be serious for brief moment - would you please tell us what, exactly, it would take for someone to prove that the film at NARA is THE in-camera-original.

I'm not setting some trap - I'd really like to know what would convince you. I'm guessing that (1) nothing could convince you or (2) even if it convinced you there's an alterationist answer for it. So that no matter what the test it's no real problem for the true believer.

So there you have it David - a simple question with its agenda right on the surface. Will you provide a direct, straight answer?

Jerry

Excuse me for butting in here Jerry, and David, but I think that, as I've said before, each camera has certain unique characterstics, like the barrell of a gun makes ballistic marks that are totally unique to that gun, and using a similar make and model just won't do.

Same holds for manual typewriters that create characteristics that are unique to that specific typewriter, and using a similar make and model just won't hold up in court.

Therefore, if they already did shoot another film through the Zapruder camera and that film is in the archives, then it can be compared to the original z-film and it should match up, not looking at the content, but looking at the similar microscopic lines and marks that each camera makes on the hard copy film.

Am I right about this or am I wrong?

And Jerry, thanks for your intestest in this line of inquiry and I do hope we can generate more information to make better judgments on.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

David?

Bill,

I think that might convince you or the members of impartial jury. However - if the forgers were really good they would realize that the camera might be checked against the film at some point. Therefore they took a blank reel of film and ran it through the camera with its lens cap on. Then they printed the final fake onto the still blank reel that has gone through the camera. Therefore it will show all the marks associated with having been run through the camera but it's still a fake. So just because the camera marks match up doesn't mean it was the film used that day in Dallas.

Best to you,

Jerry

[Jerry Logan]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

Well that raises an interesting point David. If you're willing to be serious for brief moment - would you please tell us what, exactly, it would take for someone to prove that the film at NARA is THE in-camera-original.

I'm not setting some trap - I'd really like to know what would convince you. I'm guessing that (1) nothing could convince you or (2) even if it convinced you there's an alterationist answer for it. So that no matter what the test it's no real problem for the true believer.

So there you have it David - a simple question with its agenda right on the surface. Will you provide a direct, straight answer?

Jerry

All these commentators who have not read HORNE IV.

Simple. The double8 film WAS SPLIT in Dallas.

When the film reached Hawkeye Works, it was UNSPLIT 16MM.

Case Closed.

Jack

Mr. White,

Sure, all that's required is PROOF that ALL the copies were split in Dallas. Horne assumes this, but only has evidence that SOME of of the films were split.

Best to you,

Jerry

[Jack White]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

Well that raises an interesting point David. If you're willing to be serious for brief moment - would you please tell us what, exactly, it would take for someone to prove that the film at NARA is THE in-camera-original.

I'm not setting some trap - I'd really like to know what would convince you. I'm guessing that (1) nothing could convince you or (2) even if it convinced you there's an alterationist answer for it. So that no matter what the test it's no real problem for the true believer.

So there you have it David - a simple question with its agenda right on the surface. Will you provide a direct, straight answer?

Jerry

All these commentators who have not read HORNE IV.

Simple. The double8 film WAS SPLIT in Dallas.

When the film reached Hawkeye Works, it was UNSPLIT 16MM.

Case Closed.

Jack

Mr. White,

Sure, all that's required is PROOF that ALL the copies were split in Dallas. Horne assumes this, but only has evidence that SOME of of the films were split.

Best to you,

Jerry

Have you read HORNE IV?

Jack

[Jerry Logan]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

Well that raises an interesting point David. If you're willing to be serious for brief moment - would you please tell us what, exactly, it would take for someone to prove that the film at NARA is THE in-camera-original.

I'm not setting some trap - I'd really like to know what would convince you. I'm guessing that (1) nothing could convince you or (2) even if it convinced you there's an alterationist answer for it. So that no matter what the test it's no real problem for the true believer.

So there you have it David - a simple question with its agenda right on the surface. Will you provide a direct, straight answer?

Jerry

All these commentators who have not read HORNE IV.

Simple. The double8 film WAS SPLIT in Dallas.

When the film reached Hawkeye Works, it was UNSPLIT 16MM.

Case Closed.

Jack

Mr. White,

Sure, all that's required is PROOF that ALL the copies were split in Dallas. Horne assumes this, but only has evidence that SOME of of the films were split.

Best to you,

Jerry

Have you read HORNE IV?

Jack

So far, only Chapter 14. Can you direct me to the page where Horne PROVES that all the films were split in Dallas? I can't seem to locate that.

Jerry

[William Kelly]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

Well that raises an interesting point David. If you're willing to be serious for brief moment - would you please tell us what, exactly, it would take for someone to prove that the film at NARA is THE in-camera-original.

I'm not setting some trap - I'd really like to know what would convince you. I'm guessing that (1) nothing could convince you or (2) even if it convinced you there's an alterationist answer for it. So that no matter what the test it's no real problem for the true believer.

So there you have it David - a simple question with its agenda right on the surface. Will you provide a direct, straight answer?

Jerry

Excuse me for butting in here Jerry, and David, but I think that, as I've said before, each camera has certain unique characterstics, like the barrell of a gun makes ballistic marks that are totally unique to that gun, and using a similar make and model just won't do.

Same holds for manual typewriters that create characteristics that are unique to that specific typewriter, and using a similar make and model just won't hold up in court.

Therefore, if they already did shoot another film through the Zapruder camera and that film is in the archives, then it can be compared to the original z-film and it should match up, not looking at the content, but looking at the similar microscopic lines and marks that each camera makes on the hard copy film.

Am I right about this or am I wrong?

And Jerry, thanks for your intestest in this line of inquiry and I do hope we can generate more information to make better judgments on.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

David?

Bill,

I think that might convince you or the members of impartial jury. However - if the forgers were really good they would realize that the camera might be checked against the film at some point. Therefore they took a blank reel of film and ran it through the camera with its lens cap on. Then they printed the final fake onto the still blank reel that has gone through the camera. Therefore it will show all the marks associated with having been run through the camera but it's still a fake. So just because the camera marks match up doesn't mean it was the film used that day in Dallas.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry, you really had me going there for a minute and I thought you were serious about answering these outstanding questions, but now you say that even if we do such testing it isn't worth it because any conspirator worth his salt would have covered his ass on this point.

Now you're starting to sound like a real conspiracy theorist.

And I don't buy it.

Bill Kelly

[Jerry Logan]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

Well that raises an interesting point David. If you're willing to be serious for brief moment - would you please tell us what, exactly, it would take for someone to prove that the film at NARA is THE in-camera-original.

I'm not setting some trap - I'd really like to know what would convince you. I'm guessing that (1) nothing could convince you or (2) even if it convinced you there's an alterationist answer for it. So that no matter what the test it's no real problem for the true believer.

So there you have it David - a simple question with its agenda right on the surface. Will you provide a direct, straight answer?

Jerry

Excuse me for butting in here Jerry, and David, but I think that, as I've said before, each camera has certain unique characterstics, like the barrell of a gun makes ballistic marks that are totally unique to that gun, and using a similar make and model just won't do.

Same holds for manual typewriters that create characteristics that are unique to that specific typewriter, and using a similar make and model just won't hold up in court.

Therefore, if they already did shoot another film through the Zapruder camera and that film is in the archives, then it can be compared to the original z-film and it should match up, not looking at the content, but looking at the similar microscopic lines and marks that each camera makes on the hard copy film.

Am I right about this or am I wrong?

And Jerry, thanks for your intestest in this line of inquiry and I do hope we can generate more information to make better judgments on.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

David?

Bill,

I think that might convince you or the members of impartial jury. However - if the forgers were really good they would realize that the camera might be checked against the film at some point. Therefore they took a blank reel of film and ran it through the camera with its lens cap on. Then they printed the final fake onto the still blank reel that has gone through the camera. Therefore it will show all the marks associated with having been run through the camera but it's still a fake. So just because the camera marks match up doesn't mean it was the film used that day in Dallas.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry, you really had me going there for a minute and I thought you were serious about answering these outstanding questions, but now you say that even if we do such testing it isn't worth it because any conspirator worth his salt would have covered his ass on this point.

Now you're starting to sound like a real conspiracy theorist.

And I don't buy it.

Bill Kelly

Bill,

I'm afraid I wasn't clear and therefore caused you to misunderstood me. The testing would answer the question for me and I'd be satisfied as I think most people would be.

But I was pointing out that dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool alterationists won't just give up. There wouldn't be a Perry Mason moment where Jim Fetzer says "Gosh, I was wrong and you were right."

Instead, there's likely to be a new round of arguments like the one I suggested. My reply to you was meant to represent what the alterationists would argue, not what I believe. So my question to David was essentially "What would make you give up? What would it take for David Healy to believe that what's at the NARA is in fact an in camera original shot in Dallas on November 22?"

I have always thought there was a conspiracy but I've never been convinced the Zapruder film was altered as part of that effort. Honestly, the right tests could convince me it was altered and the right tests could convince me it wasn't. I'm just not sure that anything could change David or Fetzer's mind - so that's why I'm asking.

You're dead on right that I'm not an alterationist and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. That was definitely not my intention.

Best to you,

Jerry

Edited January 8, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[William Kelly]

...

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

a waste of time till the extant alleged Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA is authenticated as **in-camera original**

And THAT is NOT in the best interests of the Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent

Well that raises an interesting point David. If you're willing to be serious for brief moment - would you please tell us what, exactly, it would take for someone to prove that the film at NARA is THE in-camera-original.

I'm not setting some trap - I'd really like to know what would convince you. I'm guessing that (1) nothing could convince you or (2) even if it convinced you there's an alterationist answer for it. So that no matter what the test it's no real problem for the true believer.

So there you have it David - a simple question with its agenda right on the surface. Will you provide a direct, straight answer?

Jerry

Excuse me for butting in here Jerry, and David, but I think that, as I've said before, each camera has certain unique characterstics, like the barrell of a gun makes ballistic marks that are totally unique to that gun, and using a similar make and model just won't do.

Same holds for manual typewriters that create characteristics that are unique to that specific typewriter, and using a similar make and model just won't hold up in court.

Therefore, if they already did shoot another film through the Zapruder camera and that film is in the archives, then it can be compared to the original z-film and it should match up, not looking at the content, but looking at the similar microscopic lines and marks that each camera makes on the hard copy film.

Am I right about this or am I wrong?

And Jerry, thanks for your intestest in this line of inquiry and I do hope we can generate more information to make better judgments on.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

David?

Bill,

I think that might convince you or the members of impartial jury. However - if the forgers were really good they would realize that the camera might be checked against the film at some point. Therefore they took a blank reel of film and ran it through the camera with its lens cap on. Then they printed the final fake onto the still blank reel that has gone through the camera. Therefore it will show all the marks associated with having been run through the camera but it's still a fake. So just because the camera marks match up doesn't mean it was the film used that day in Dallas.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry, you really had me going there for a minute and I thought you were serious about answering these outstanding questions, but now you say that even if we do such testing it isn't worth it because any conspirator worth his salt would have covered his ass on this point.

Now you're starting to sound like a real conspiracy theorist.

And I don't buy it.

Bill Kelly

Bill,

I'm afraid I wasn't clear and therefore caused you to misunderstood me. The testing would answer the question for me and I'd be satisfied as I think most people would be.

But I was pointing out that dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool alterationists won't just give up. There wouldn't be a Perry Mason moment where Jim Fetzer says "Gosh, I was wrong and you were right."

Instead, there's likely to be a new round of arguments like the one I suggested. My reply to you was meant to represent what the alterationists would argue, not what I believe. So my question to David was essentially "What would make you give up? What would it take for David Healy to believe that what's at the NARA is in fact an in camera original shot in Dallas on November 22?"

I have always thought there was a conspiracy but I've never been convinced the Zapruder film was altered as part of that effort. Honestly, the right tests could convince me it was altered and the right tests could convince me it wasn't. I'm just not sure that anything could change David or Fetzer's mind - so that's why I'm asking.

You're dead on right that I'm not an alterationist and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. That was definitely not my intention.

Best to you,

Jerry

Well I don't know why anyone would want to bother trying to change Prof. Fetzer's mind, as he seems hell bent on believing whatever he wants.

Nor do I think it is important to try to perceive what "alterationists" will say once proof is provided on any issue.

As far as I'm concerned, there's really no need to bother to stop to debate those Lone Nuts or Conspiracy Theorists who still want to debate issues we've already bypassed and are further along than they will ever be. There's too much new info coming in constantly now that the situation is changing, almost daily.

There's a new line in the sand and all the LNs and CTs are thrown together, whether they like it or not.

BK

Edited January 8, 2010 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

Bill you mention the moving of NPIC to the Navy Yard. Is that the same facility that Knudsen refers to on page 262 and earlier where the (second round of??) autopsy prints were made?-------

Knudsen: To my recollection, Taz Shepherd, Burkley, and the Secret Service men were all present. I do not recall which one told me, the

exact words. They apparently had been discussing what was required and I was called in and told, here is what we need, and

went back to the Photographic Center and made seven sets and brought them back to the White House. I have not seen the

prints since (p. 262) Horne, Vol II

Is this the same one referred to in Anacostia in volume I in the context of questioning why the autopsy photos were not developed according to standard operation procedure at Bethesda Naval, but instead were taken to Anacostia to be developed?

If and only if so , then was this more of a CIA or ONI facility? Because in the Dino Bruglioni part in Vol 4 it is described as CIA. Forgive the training wheels here, Im trying to get up to quarter speed on this stuff using the great books by Douglas Horne. I am sure that many will benefit from the raw material of testimonies in these books even if they do not agree with all of Horne's conclusions.

And who is this Taz Shepherd guy. Might be a Quonset-hold word in some swamps, but I have never heard of him.

OKAY, WE'RE GETTING CLOSER

The wizards of Langley: inside the CIA's Directorate

http://books.google.com/books?id=bM9r_83Ito8C&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=NPIC+5th+%26+K+St.&source=bl&ots=qFGUG7gapl&sig=xRrkVvh5J6y3Vcvpvk8ALdZbZRM&hl=en&ei=b8VGS_HwJMHBlAeylYwN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA - v=onepage&q=&f=false

In 1962, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and members of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board visited and were shocked by the conditions at 5^th and K and advised the President that NPIC needed a new building. 3

Kennedy promptly told DCI JohnMcCone "to get them out fo that structure" and wanted to know how soon a move could be accomplished. McCone reoneded that the Nval Gun Factory appeared to be a reasonable choice but hat it would require a year to refurbish it. Kennedy's reply was "All right, you do it." 4

On January 1, 1963, NPIC move into its new home – Building 213 in the QWashington Navy Yard, often referred to as the "Lundahl Hilton." It was, according to McCone, a "rags-to-riches" situation. The 200,000 square feet of floor space meant that hundreds of more workers could be added. The building had large elevators, air conditioning, and good security. Most of all, it was the national center that Lundahl had envisioned almost ten years earlier. Most people in the building worked for the CIA - the people who typed letters, drove courier trucks, ran the computes and library searches, and produced he graphics. 5

But the photointerpreters came from the CIA, DIA, Army, Navy, Air Force, and other organizations. An Air Force interpreter who studied photos of Soviet silos might ride the elevator with a CIA interpreter who pored over photos of Chinese nuclear facilities and a Navy representative whose safe was filled with the latest photography of Soviet submarines.

Of course, the environment at the Washington Navy Yard, itself located in a rundown area of Washington, was far from luxurious. And working in a building whose windows, for security reasons, were bricked up certainly could be claustrophobic. But at least NPIC personnel were located in a larger facility with some amenities.

Even before the first KH-9 mission, NPIC officials, including director Arthur Lundahl and senior manager Dino Brugioni, realized that upgraded equipment would be needed to exploit the imagery fully….

BK NOTES - OF COURSE YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT U2S WITHOUT THE UFO CONNECTION AND HERE IT IS:

http://www.presidentialufo.com/articles-a-...]

The secret office that is referred to in this article is NPIC, the National Photographic Interpretation Center. The construction for the lab began in 1954 in response to the building of the U-2 spy plane. NPIC, the most highly classified photo lab in the country, was the place where the U-2, SR-71, and spy satellite photos were analyzed.

Arthur Lundahl, referred to in the above article, was the man who discovered the missiles in Cuba, and the man who was taken into President John Kennedy's office the next morning to brief the President.

Lundahl had according to Todd Zechel, the founder of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (C.A.U.S.) had the biggest UFO book collection he had ever seen. Zechel had a reliable CIA source that told him that Art Lundahl had acted as a briefer for three Presidents on the subject of UFOs.

Edited January 8, 2010 by William Kelly

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jerry, Just to be sure I understand, the original negative would be the first generation, a print made from it the second, a negative from that print the third, and a print made from that the fourth. So if Sydney obtained the Forensic Copy from the National Archives, we know what negative it was: not the original and not the first but the second negative copy. I am a bit perplexed at your casual suggestion that it may be "a copy of a copy of a copy". Actually, we KNOW that is not the case. She has a copy of a copy, which the National Archives itself designates as "the Forensic copy of the National Archives". Not to make too fine a point of it, but you seem to be making its order just a bit less certain than it is. And that strikes me as the least bit odd. Best to you, Jim

..."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

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jerry, Since Sydney obtained a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives are you implying that the National Archives doesn't know what it's doing in using this version as "the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film"? Because if that's your position--impugning the archives' integrity--I would like to know why. Thanks.

Jerry, Just to be sure I understand, the original negative would be the first generation, a print made from it the second, a negative from that print the third, and a print made from that the fourth. So if Sydney obtained the Forensic Copy from the National Archives, we know what negative it was: not the original and not the first but the second negative copy. I am a bit perplexed at your casual suggestion that it may be "a copy of a copy of a copy". Actually, we KNOW that is not the case. She has a copy of a copy, which the National Archives itself designates as "the Forensic copy of the National Archives". Not to make too fine a point of it, but you seem to be making its order just a bit less certain than it is. And that strikes me as the least bit odd. Best to you, Jim

..."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

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer