We also took motion pictures with Mr. Zapruder's camera

[David Lifton]

SMALL CORRECTION re statement about "image content":

So now we are mucking around, looking for a film that was shot in May, 1964, and hoping to get full width contact prints, when all this could have been done, routinely, back in 1996-1997, when Zavada was hired to do a job. The fact is: he didn't do the job correctly. You don't buy garage sale cameras, when the whole purpose of the test is to use THE Zapruder camera. And that seems an eminently sensible thing to do when the Government is about to spend some $16 million of the taxpayers money for a film that has image content (e.g., no car stop, on the extant Z film ) that is so contrary to what so many witnesses saw that day.

DSL

1/6/2010; 7:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[William Kelly]

To all:

The Sixth Floor Museum did NOT prevent the use of Zapruder's camera.

Doug wanted a test to be run --what any high school teacher would want: the proper film to be run through Zapruder's camera. At the time (as I recall) the Z camera was with the Museum, but that was irrelevant, because events never got that far.

Jeremy Gunn was concerned that the media would get wind of this and run a story claiming that the ARRB was "investigating" the assassination, or "questioning" the film, etc etc. In retrospect, this is ridiculous, because there was going to be a taking (of the film) and some $16 million dollars was to be spent (although the exact amount wasn't then known)--so of course there should be the appropriate tests to establish provenance, authenticity, etc.

But Gunn was squeamish, worried that what the Board would be proposing would become public, and then the critical moment occurred when Gunn--with Doug Horne standing there in his office--got Rollie Zavada on the phone, and queried Rollie as to the desirability and/or necessity of doing such a test (which, clearly, Gunn did not want to do). Zavada, who by that time either had purchased (or knew he would be purchasing) the same Bell and Howell camera (from garage sales, etc.) demurred, and said (in effect), "No, that's not necessary." Doug was crestfallen, because there, right before his eyes, a critical opportunity--to test put the Z film in evidence to a proper (and simple) --authenticity test, went down the drain. Again, let me emphasize: the Sixth Floor Museum was not the problem. The problem was that Gunn preferred not to have to do it, and then Zavada basically backed him up, by saying it wasn't necessary.

I know of these details because I was on the phone with Doug Horne several times a week, during this period--and we had agreed (the year before) to tape all our telephone conversations. So I have a dozens of cassettes, and numerous memos of the day by day goings on, with regard to the ARRB and the medical evidence, and the ARRB and the Z film. It was on July 1, 1996, that I sent Horne, Gunn, Marwell, et al the file I had received (some 26 years earlier) containing the Z contracts (both of them, the origina, 11/23/63 and then the revised 11/25/63, when the price tripled, to $150K, over the weekend) and the word I got back was that they were all delighted to receive these documents.

Had Gunn and Zavada performed such a test, then there would have been one of two outcomes: either the test films would "match" (which would certainly be consistent with--but not proof of--authenticity) or there would be a mismatch. The fact is, there were no specific suspicions about what it would or would not show at the time. It just seemed like the proper thing to do. But Gunn was afraid of the public impression it would create, Zavada acquiesced, and so it was not done.

So now we are mucking around, looking for a film that was shot in May, 1964, and hoping to get full width contact prints, when all this could have been done, routinely, back in 1996-1997, when Zavada was hired to do a job. The fact is: he didn't do the job correctly. You don't buy garage sale cameras, when the whole purpose of the test is to use THE Zapruder camera. And that seems an eminently sensible thing to do when the Government is about to spend some $16 million of the taxpayers money for a film that has image content (e.g., car stop etc ) that is so contrary to what so many witnesses saw that day.

DSL

1/6/2010; 7:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

It is quite clear, not only from IARRB but just from watching them perform, that the members of the ARRB did not exhibit much interest in the work of the staff and didn't press them to do a complete job, but just because they didn't do it doesn't mean it can still be done.

One of my beefs with Doug Horne is the sub-title of his book "The US Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination..."

Why is it the final attempt? Why was the HSCA the final investigation?

According to the Constitution the US Congress has oversight responsiblities that have yet to be fullfilled, and it is possible that the relevant Congressional sub-committee could take an interest in the oversight of the JFK Act and review the work of the ARRB. If so they have subpoena power and could answer many of the outstanding questions related to the government records of the assassination, which now includes the Z-film.

There is also another legal remidey - the courts.

I have asked Gary Mack if they have ever legally acted on their right to prevent the "theft" - as he puts it - of the copyright on the film, and if so that may be an opportunity to put the chain of custody and provenance questions to test, as well as the use of the original camera in tests.

Certainly if the original z-film was used by an optical printer in creating any shennigans, then the optical printer's camera would now be the creater of the new original film, and it would not create a film with the same characteristics as Zapruder's camera, just like every gun barrell and every manual typewriter exhibits unique characteristics.

Some of the questions and arguments can be settled with new information, as Jerry said, and such new information can be forthcoming, either in Congress or the Courts, or even with tests on the existing materials.

In any case, I hope the ARRB was not the "Final Attempt" to answer anything, because they failed, just as Congress is failing for not properly overseeing the law.

Bill Kelly