Jump to content
The Education Forum

Yet another copy of the Zapruder film?


Recommended Posts

I just found this while working on something that has nothing to do with the discussions on this board. I find it inherently interesting and a useful prod to thinking about the Zapruder film.

On September 17, 1977, Chief Counsel Blakey convened a meeting with various critics in Washington, D.C. Sylvia Meagher, Paul Hoch, Peter Dale Scott, me, Mary Ferrell, Larry Harris, Jim Kostman, Gary Shaw and some others. We sat around a big table and the critics discussed with Blakey things HSAC might pursue. After a bit, talk turned to the Zapruder film and I told the group what we had learned about via discovery in the lawsuit brought against us by Time, Inc. A transcript of the discussion that day exists and I was reading it for another purpose. I came across this exchange on pages 146 and 147 of the transcript:

Ms. Ferrell: Jamieson Film Labs was where it was developed. It was not developed at Kodak.

Mr. Thompson: I beg to differ. I have got affidavits from people who worked at Kodak.

Ms. Ferrell: Well, Jamieson Film Labs is in the 26 volumes, it is in documents, and January of 1968 we had an old Vice President of Chrysler visiting us and I didn’t know what to do with him, he just kept sitting, and I thought, well, you are from Detroit. Maybe you are interested in the assassination, that’s the only thing I am interested in. So I said, have you ever seen the Zapruder film, you know, the one taken of the Kennedy assassination. Oh yes, I’ve seen it. And I said when, sir? And he said, well, my sister worked for Jamieson Film Laboratories, and my wife and I visited here Christmas of 1963, and she had a copy, all of them had copies of it.

In essence, the claim comes down to Mary Ferrell saying in September 1977 that she entertained an out-of-town visitor in 1968, a Vice-President of Chrysler. According to Mary Ferrell, he said he had viewed the Zapruder film when he visited his sister in Dallas over Christmas in 1963. His sister worked at Jamieson Film Laboratories and had acquired a copy there as had other employees.

Do I believe that this is a hot lead to an undiscovered and early copy of the Zapruder film? No.

If memory serves, Rollie Zavada learned that exactly three (3) copies of Kodachrome II Type A indoor film were available at the Kodak plant and these were sent over to Jamieson along with Zapruder and his original film. Who knows? Mary Ferrell may have misremembered what she had been told? The Chrysler Vice-President may have been shown some other film of the assassination and thought it was the Zapruder film? This may well turn out to be just another phantom Zapruder film like the one Pamela thought she saw in New York or Rich Dellarossa thought he saw in Maryland.

Or it might be true. Perhaps Jamieson had additional film stock on hand, and, during the copying process, additional copies were made from the original. Some relative of the Vice-President’s sister may be going through cardboard boxes in their attic months from now and discover the copy of the film referred to here. A call will get made to the 6th Floor Museum and we will learn for the first time of the existence of this additional Jamieson copy of the film.

However, my point is quite different. Why try to alter or fake up the Zapruder film when the genie has already escaped from the bottle?

Let’s say you are the mastermind of a plot to make the Kennedy assassination look like the work of a single gunman. Let’s say that no one ever imagined that someone like Zapruder would get up on his pedestal and shoot the assassination as he did. Although Forrest Sorrels did not display great interest in the film he saw at Kodak... Zapruder had to go hunting for him at DPD headquarters on the night of the 22nd... after the film reached the FBI and Secret Service later that night, you are asked to make a command decision: Shall we try to get hold of the film and change it?

The easy and obvious choice is: You seize the film and all its copies. At 11:00 PM that night, Zapruder is home. We know that from the Stolley phone call. You send two agents to his home in the dead of night and they seize the film and its copies. Zapruder would have bitched about it but who cares. Then you would have sent agents to both the Kodak plant and Jamieson to seize any additional copies of the film that had been made. The reason for the seizures: evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.

What makes no sense at all is to let Zapruder sell his film to LIFE, let Stolley courier the original to the printing plant in Chicago and let Zapruder keep a copy. After all this has happened, you politely ask LIFE to borrow their copy in midst of them trying to get out next week’s issue? I don’t think so. Once the film arrives in Chicago, copies are being turned out as part of the production process and the genie is truly out of the bottle.

Of course, the real danger to any attempt to fake up the photo record is the blunt fact that no one can control the photo record of Dealey Plaze. If you fake up film “A,” it won’t match other films taken in the Plaza. It will stand out. And you can never know what films were taken in Dealey Plaza. The attempts to get film evidence by the FBI was desultory at best and these efforts were limited to Dallas. No one could know that a tourist from Omaha or Calgary might have important film that would expose the fraud.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In order to find answers, we need to ask the right questions. Why was the Zapruder original spliced in at least two places? Why was the Z-film suppressed for so many years from the general public? Why was the copy Geraldo finally aired so grainy when there were much clearer copies available? Why are there so many anomalies in the Z-film that we can now all view?

And, since Tink was involved with LIFE and its early dribbling out of the Z-film to the rest of us, perhaps he could clue us in on how its executives were able to order copies of it for themselves, per the Lancer site?

"Nov. 26: Time-LIFE editors ordered copies of the film for themselves; as a result, bootleg copies were produced."

http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the kind of analysis Thompson should have produced in SSID were he remotely interested in the truth of the subject. Compare the quality of observation below with that to be found in SSID. And laugh.

Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974)

Chapter 4: The Filmed Assassination

One of the most important films of the murder was an 8 mm color movie taken by Abraham Zapruder. The Secret Service had first access to his original film, which was then altered in an attempt to cover up the agency’s part in the plot.

Zapruder stood mid-way between the depository and the underpass (1) and filmed the Presidential limousine from the time it turned the corner of Elm and Houston Streets until it reached the triple underpass. His untampered film recorded what occurred inside the vehicle.

A number of copies of the Zapruder film, whose clarity ranged from excellent to poor, including the films and slides at Life magazine and those at the National Archives, were made available to the authors. Each copy was carefully examined and this chapter deals basically with the results of that examination.

A movie is a series of individual pictures, or frames, in consecutive order (2). In describing the film, we refer to numbers assigned to each frame.

Description

The Presidential limousine first appears on available Zapruder film at frame 133, at a point in the street opposite the centre of the depository (3). The President, seated in the back on the right, is waving to the crowd with his right arm. He is hidden from camera view by a freeway sign, beginning at frame 203, and is shot in the throat at approximately frame 207. When he reappears from behind the sign at frame 225, his mouth is open and his hands are raised to his throat. From this point, he starts to lean forward, and to his left, until frame 313, when his head is impacted by a bullet.

Beginning with frame 305, the driver turns around, one hand on the wheel, and faces the President (4), at which point the President’s head is struck by the fatal bullet.

Between frames 313 and 323, the President is slammed backward by the impact of the shot. Between frames 323 and 340, he falls forward, and to his left, into his wife’s lap.

Mrs. Kennedy scrambles out of the limousine, over the trunk, between frames 345 and 375. Her bodyguard, Clinton J. Hill, touches the back of the limousine at frame 345, placing his foot on the car at frame 371, to assist her.

When the Governor reappears from behind the freeway sign at frame 223, he is looking to his right. Then he begins to turn his head forward. Between frames 227 and 230, he raises his hat (the whereabouts of which, possibly containing bullet hole, is unknown) up-and-down in reaction. At frame 233, he starts to raise his left forearm and to turn to his right again. The Governor’s mouth is open. Between frames 255 and 292, he continues to turn his head to the right, exposing his back to the front seat, until he is looking at the President. At frame 285, he is shot. He is then pulled backward by his wife.

After the fatal shot to the President at frame 313, the Governor begins to pull himself up, placing his right hand on the metal handhold on the top of the back of the front seat. At frame 323, he is sitting up, looking into the front seat.

A visible flare on the windshield of the limousine occurs at frame 330 as the result of another shot.

Authentication

For the Warren Commission, an FBI photographic expert numbered each frame of the Zapruder film. The first frame of the motorcade sequence was number “1” and the following frames were counted in order (5).

In its published record of the film, the Commission printed black-and-white photographs of frame 171 through 334. This is just before the limousine disappears behind the freeway sign until just before Mrs. Kennedy begins to climb out of the back seat (6).

The same numbering was used for those available copies of the Zapruder film that the authors examined. Each copy was placed on a viewer that allowed every frame to be seen and counted individually.

The examined copies agreed with the published version. For example, frame 171 of the copies we examined was identical to the published frame 171. The head shot at frame 313 in the copies was the same as frame 313 printed by the Commission.

All available copies were a single, continuous strip of film, without any mechanical splices.

In sum, those available copies matched the film that the Warren Commission viewed.

The original Zapruder film, however, seems to be unavailable.

Cuts

Between the period that Zapruder took his film and the Commission saw it, the film was altered.

Available copies that we examined showed splices present (Fig. 4-3). All splices were photographic, i.e., the mechanical splices of the original were copied onto the duplicates (7).

The following is an inventory of our examination.

Splices in frames 152-159 concern the period after the limousine turned Elm and Houston Streets and before the freeway sign.

Frame 152 is spliced at the bottom of the frame. In the next frame, splices exist at both top and bottom. In addition, the color changes. Instead of the previous warm color, the frames have a bluish cast. A great difference between frames 153 and 152 is indicated by the movement of the limousine: it makes an extremely rapid forward lurch indicating frames are missing here.

Frame 154 has a splice at the top and is bluish in cast. Frame 155 contains a splice at the top third of the frame. Splicing tape marks are present in the foreground of frame 156, which is also bluish; a crude splicing gap appears at the base. A splice may exist at the lower third of frame 159.

The next sequence in which splicing and color change occur is during the that period when the limousine is hidden by the freeway sign.

There is a possible splice in the top eighth of frame 205. Splicing tape adhesive marks are visible on the freeway sign in frame 206. Frame 206 has a bluish cast, as do frames 207-212.

Frame 207 is spliced at the top. A splice may have been made on frame 210 near the bottom. On frame 211, splicing adhesive tape marks are present. Splicing adhesive covers frame 212; a crude cut out is at the base. Frame 213 has a splice at the top; the color changes back to warm hues. At frame 215, a splice line runs across the top fourth of the frame.

Color change indicates that different copies of the film were used to produce one continuous film (8).

A graph, made to show the feet the limousine traveled per frame number, indicates the limousine moved about 20 feet every 20 frames (Fig. 4-4). Between frames 197 and 218, when the limousine is behind the freeway sign, it moved only 10 feet within 21 frames. This means that the limousine either slowed down or stopped between frames 197 and 218. If it stopped then an unaccountable number of frames could have been removed.

Throughout the entire Zapruder film, nothing indicates that frames have been added. What is clear is that frames have been removed. Time has been deleted from the film. With time removed, the film is useless as a clock for the assassination.

Retouching

Retouching has been done with the image of the driver in the film between frames 214-333. It appears after the limousine emerges from behind the freeway sign. Retouching is evident on the front of the limousine windshield on the driver’s side to obscure his movements. The author’s reconstruction film, taken of a car on Elm Street, under similar lighting conditions, on Nov. 22, 1969, at 12:30 p.m., shows the driver’s motions clearly through the windshield.

Retouching may also occur at the top of the freeway sign to obscure the action of the occupants and to hide the shot hitting the President in the throat.

The object in the driver’s hand is barely visible between frames 285 and 297, the sequence of the Governor’s wounds. Between frames 303-317, it is easily seen. The telling feature, especially in the latter sequence, is the action: the driver raises it, seems to aim, and, then, in the frame immediately after the fatal shot to the President in frame 313, brings it down.

Although splicing marks were undetectable about frame 313, it is likely that frames were removed and the remaining retouched. The appearance of frame 313 is vital to the health of the scenario.

Given the forward inclination of the President’s head at the time of the fatal shot (Fig. 4-5), a line drawn through the actual points of entrance and exit is horizontal. If a rifleman fired from above and behind, the line between the points of exit and entrance would be at an angle.

To camouflage evidence of a shot from the front, the actual exit wound at the side of the head (Fig. 4-5) was covered with opaque (Fig. 4-6).

Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other films of the assassination lack this halo (9). The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder film two days [error: three days – PR] after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an exploding head (10). Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony (11).

The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the President’s head (12), not only confuses the features of the head, but also distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground.

The two Secret Service agents in the front seat and both Connallys implied a shot came from the rear by claiming that a substantial amount of debris came forward and down on them (13). No pictorial evidence verifies their claims.

A good indication of removal of frames during the fatal shot sequence is found in the out-of-sequence movements of the legs of a woman running across the lawn in the background. The rhythm of her running is broken unnaturally, e.g., running on her left leg twice, which would indicate frame removal.

Retouching can be seen in a comparison of frames 317 and 321 (Fig. 4-7). The President and his wife appear large in frame 321, even though the dimensions of the two frames are equal in size. Frame 321 was optically enlarged and then reframed. This eliminated material at the right hand side of the picture, such as the driver and the windshield. In addition, it is possible that in frame 321 the windshield was painted-in; it fails to match the windshield in frame 317. In addition, a change in perspective occurs. The line in the back seat in frame 321 has shifted. This means that the limousine has gone further down the street and that an unknown number of frames were removed (14).

Refilming

More evidence of tampering is indicated with the framing of the pictures, especially between frames 280-300. There, the heads of both the President and Connally scarcely appear, and almost disappear from view. This means that the original film was probably refilmed, and reframed, in such a manner as to remove certain material just below their heads.

For example, on the afternoon of Nov. 24, 1963, two days after the assassination, CBS newsman Dan Rather viewed a copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas. His report noted that Connally, as he turned to look back at the President, “…exposed his entire shirt front and chest because his coat was unbuttoned…at that moment a shot very clearly hit that part of the Governor” (15). On available copies, only Connally’s head appears in this sequence.

The possibility exists that the original Zapruder film was refilmed on an optical printer. Modern cinematography laboratories are equipped with optical printing machines that can generate a new negative without the “errors” of the original. Optical printers can insert new frames, skip frames, re-size the images, along with other creative illusions. One hour on the optical printer could eliminate the Connally hit (16).

Deletions

Most available copies, when viewed on a screen as a movie, are slightly jerky, especially in the movement of the limousine. Perhaps the maximum number of cuts was made, the greatest number of frames removed, without making it obvious to the casual viewer.

Certain items could not be altered, such as the President’s head and body snapping backward, without elaborate artwork. But, of those who have seen the film, the cuts are overcome by the way in which people see the movie. The viewer’s focus is usually on the President, not on the other people in the limousine.

Some of the action depicted on the film that was difficult to explain had to be eliminated.

First, the limousine initially appears on available copies some 40 feet down from the top of the street; it literally leaps into view. Yet Zapruder stated that he filmed the limousine as it turned onto Elm St. from Houston St. (17). The copy that CBS reporter Dan Rather saw two days [error: three days – PR] after the assassination apparently had the turn on it because Rather described it (18).

Frames deleted between 152-159 probably showed the decoy shot being fired from the Vice-President’s follow-up car.

Cuts between frames 205-215 likely relate to two areas: reaction to the decoy (first) shot, and the second (throat) shot.

Between frames 207-212, the President seems to swing his head very quickly to his left as if in reaction to the decoy shot. His action would indicate the direction of the Secret Service agent’s revolver as well as sharply contrast with the lack of reaction by those agents in the front seat of the Presidential limousine.

The President’s reaction to the second shot, which hit him in the throat, is missing. Zapruder testified, “…I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area)” (19). CBS reporter Dan Rather said that “…the President lurched forward just a bit, it was obvious he had been hit in the movie…” (20).

The Commission, which received the film from the Secret Service, published frames 207 and 212, both obviously spliced, but failed to print frames 208-211 (21).

The alterations after the fatal shot probably were concerned with eliminating the limousine stop and the rush by Secret Service agents upon it. Indeed, the Secret Service made an effort “…to ascertain whether any [movie news] film could be found showing special agents on the ground alongside the Presidential automobile at any point along the parade route” (22).

Film Confiscation

In other films of the assassination, activity in the front seat of the limousine is either obscured or absent. All known movie films of the murder (except Zapruder’s) omit the sequence where the President was first hit. Confiscation of film explains this less than random pattern; all would not stop their cameras at the same time.

Fig. 4-8 shows the areas of Houston and Elm Streets covered by nine known, amateur movie cameras, tracking the limousine. All of the professional movie cameramen were too far back to take footage of the action, except one.

One amateur said that his 8 mm color film was lost during processing. When it was finally returned, some frames were ruined, others were missing (23). The assassination sequence that reached the FBI had 150 frames, equivalent to eight seconds (24). The limousine was in the amateur’s view for some 20 seconds, not including the time it was stopped.

Another amateur’s 8 mm color movie film contained 66 frames of the assassination, approximately three and one-half seconds (25).

Two Secret Service agents obtained both of a woman’s black-and-white still Polaroid photographs (26). One photograph showed the motorcade with the depository in the background; the other caught the President a split-second after he was struck in the head (27). When the two pictures were returned, her friend thought “some things had been erased” (28). Her friend recalled that the woman took four or five photographs of the motorcade, including “two or three good ones” of the President (29).

A man turned his photographs over to a Secret Service agent who kept them for about one month before returning them (30). Retouching is apparent on a 35 mm colored slide he took about the time of the first shot (31).

James W. Altgens, a professional photographer, took his still black-and-white photographs back to his office at Associated Press, had the film processed, and put on the wire (32). The Secret Service was unable to intercept these.

Altgens snapped four photographs of the limousine as it approached Main and Houston Streets and turned right into Houston Street heading for the depository building. Then, he ran down across the grass triangle in the center of Dealey Plaza and into the sparsely populated assassination zone. Directly across from a grassy knoll, where Zapruder was filming, Altgens stepped from the curb and took a photograph of the approaching limousine approximately midway in the execution. Returning to the curb, he snapped another one of the limousine when it was two or three car lengths past him. These professional quality photographs were to become the clearest taken that day of the limousine on Elm Street.

Altgens moved approximately 240 feet from Main and Houston Streets to snap his Elm St. photograph of the limousine in mid-assassination. The limousine traveled approximately 330 feet during this time. These distances give some indication of the low speed of the motorcade.

A professional movie cameraman, within range, was referred to by an ABC News Director during a TV broadcast. The Director said:

“A tv newsreel man was following in a car just behind the Presidential motorcade and at that particular moment had the President in the frame of his camera. He had it on close-up and he was panning from the Texas Library building [sic]…As soon as he saw the President fall…he then panned up and he said…”If I have on film what I saw through the eye of my camera, I have the complete assassination.” At that particular point…he was picked up by a Secret Serviceman. The Secret Service impounded the film; it was allegedly 16 mm color” (33).

No such film has been located. Such professional quality film would show not only activity in the limousine, but also an empty “sniper’s nest” (34).

Getting the Zapruder Film

How did the Secret Service acquire Zapruder’s film?

After Zapruder completed his filming, he returned to his office and asked his secretary “…to call the police or the Secret Service” (35). Then he went to his desk where he waited “…until the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the film” (36).

An inspector with the Dallas Police Dept. was notified about Zapruder’s film. A sergeant told him that Zapruder refused to give the police the film and was waiting for either the Secret Service or the FBI. The inspector sent the sergeant, with two other men, to bring Zapruder and his movie to him. Instead, the sergeant reported back that Forrest V. Sorrels of the Secret Service was with Zapruder. The inspector then told his men to go about their usual assignments because “…since Forrest was already there and talking to him [Zapruder], I knew that that part would be taken care of” (37).

Sorrels first learned about the film from a crime reporter for the Dallas Morning News (38). According to Sorrels, Zapruder “…agreed to furnish me with a copy of this film with the understanding that it was strictly for official use of the Secret Service…” (39).

Sorrels went to the Dallas Morning News in mid-afternoon (40). He found that the newspaper was unable to develop the film, but did learn that the Eastman Kodak Co., in Dallas, could do so (41).

The Kodak Film Processing Laboratory received “…one 8 mm Kodachrome II Film…” on November 22, and claimed they returned it unaltered to Zapruder. Kodak perforated the identification number 0183 at the “…end of the processed film and carrier strip [leader]…”(42).

Sorrels may have advised Zapruder to have three copies made of the film. Kodak was unable to do so. The Jamieson Film Co. of Dallas, however, could make copies if the 8 mm film was in its original form as a 25-foot roll of 16 mm (8 mm is made by dividing the 16 mm and splicing the two 25 foot rolls together). Zapruder, therefore, had Kodak process the film without splitting it, then took it to Jamieson (43).

Jamieson also received the film on November 22. The company asserted the film remained unaltered during the printing operation. Zapruder received three duplicate copies with the identification number 0183, at the end of the original film, printed onto the three duplicates (44).

Zapruder returned to Kodak where he had the three duplicates processed and developed. They were given the identification numbers 0185, 0186, and 0187 (45). What happened to 0184 is unclear.

Zapruder then had a total of four films, one original and three duplicates. He said he gave Sorrels two copies. Sorrels kept one and another was rushed to Washington, D.C., on November 22, by army plane. (46). Yet, according to a note of transmittal from a Secret Service agent to Secret Service Chief Rowley in Washington, D.C., the disposition was different. The agent stated: “Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the ‘master’ film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded” (47).

Also on Friday evening, November 22, Sorrels did a frame-by-frame study of the Zapruder film in his Dallas office. According to Dallas Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes, who was present, “…we thumbed [through] that thing for an hour or more…push[ing] it up one frame at a time” (48).

The next day, November 23, Sorrels gave a copy to an inspector of the Secret Service who at a later date loaned it to the FBI. The FBI returned it to the inspector, who gave it to Sorrels for the Dallas office of the Secret Service (49).

The FBI was dependent upon the Secret Service for a copy of the film, which it then duplicated for its examination (50). The Secret Service retained the film until the altered version was prepared.

Life

On November 23, 1963, Zapruder made an agreement with Life magazine (51). Two days later, he asked Life to acknowledge receipt of the original and one copy (52). He wrote that the Secret Service had the other two copies, one in Dallas, and one in Washington, D.C. (53).

When did Life acquire physical possession of the film? On November 29, 1963, Life printed some frames. But it only talked of a “…series of pictures…”; it failed to mention that it was a movie and also the name of the man who made it (54).

There are two indications that Life was not in possession of the film. First, the lack of clarity in its reproduction suggests a copy. Second, the magazine enjoyed a reputation for its color printing. The film was in color, but Life’s reproduction was in black-and-white (55).

In its memorial edition of December 13, 1963, Life printed colored reproductions of the film and mentioned “a Dallas clothing manufacturer…[took] pictures with his 8 mm home movie camera: it is from his film that these pictures are taken” (56). Yet three days later, the Warren Commission only saw a series of still photographs made from the film (57). It was not until Feb. 25, 1964, that Life showed its version of the film to the Commission” (58).

It is likely that the Secret Service sanctioned what frames could be printed between 1963 and Sep. 1964, when the Commission issued its report. In the October 2, 1964, issue of Life, which covered the Warren Commission’s report, frame sprockets are missing on the cover and eight frames featured inside (59).

The October 2, 1964, issue of Life appeared in at least six versions (60). Frame 313, with the bursting head, appeared in color in three of the six versions.

Chairman Warren displayed his advance knowledge of the head burst before the Warren Commission on Dec. 16, 1963. “There’s another sequence which they [Life] did not include,” he said, “and it shows the burst of blood and things from his head, blown out” (61). This seems to be the earliest date when certain knowledge was expressed about the manufactured head burst. This frame was not printed in Life until Oct. 2, 1964. CBS reporter Dan Rather, who saw the film in Dallas two days after the assassination, did not mention this dramatic burst. In addition, other movie films of this same sequence failed to record it.

At what point did Life realize that it did not have the original film? It waited until May 1967 to copyright it (62).

Tell-Tale Sign

At some time between Nov. 22, 1963, and Dec. 5, 1963, the Stemmons Freeway sign was re-positioned and raised, invalidating any accurate reconstruction of the crime.

On Dec. 16, 1963, member John J. McCloy commented on it and its significance before a Commission meeting: “You see this sign here,” he said, “pointing to a frame from the Zapruder film, “someone suggested that this sign has now been removed…from the sign you can get a good notion of where the first bullet hit” (63).

It was on July 22, 1964, however, when the Commission interviewed the Dealey Plaza grounds keeper. He commented, “…they have moved some of those signs. They have moved that R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign” (64).

A photograph taken during the Secret Service re-enactment (Fif. 4-9) on Dec. 5, 1963, when compared to Zapruder frame 207 (Fig. 4-10) shows the following. First, the sign had been moved to the right and raised. Second, the angle of the sign to the camera differs from Zapruder’s. The sign’s new position is also shown when the FBI reconstruction photograph of May 24, 1964, (Fig. 4-11), is overlayed with the Secret Service photo of Dec. 5, 1963. The overlay (Fig. 4-12) was made by matching the tree (A), masonry holes (:lol:, and windows © in both.

The FBI apparently tried to have the sign replaced to approximately where it was on Nov. 22, 1963. Note how much of the stand-ins can be seen (Fig. 4-11) as compared to frame 207 (Fig. 4-10). There is also a difference in appearance between the two signs: the sign in frame 207 (Fig. 4-10) has a medium grey tone while that in the Secret Service (Fig. 4-9) and FBI (Fig. 4-11) reconstructions is solid black.

After May 24, 1964, the sign was removed, making any accurate reconstruction of the Zapruder film impossible (65).

Altering Time

The Secret Service produced the first re-enactment tests and surveys. These would be the basis of the information for both the FBI and the Commission, and thereby mislead them.

On Nov. 25, 1963, the Secret Service made a survey in Dealey Plaza to establish bullet trajectories (66).

Two days later, the Secret Service held its first re-enactment. Using a surveyor and the Zapruder film, an agent measured the distance from the eastern window ledge of the depository’s sixth floor to the car. The distance for the neck shot was given as 170 feet, the point at which the view of the car is blocked by the freeway sign. The head shot was stated as 260 feet. He claimed the point where Connally was shot was undeterminable (67).

The Secret Service photographs of its re-enactment show the car at 170 and 260 feet; its map designates these two shots at frames 207 and 375, with frame 330 as the shot for Connally (68).

Again, on Dec. 5, 1963, the Secret Service held another re-enactment. At that time, the car, according to photographs, was positioned at frames 207, 330, and 375. When this was put on a map, they co-ordinated with frames 207, 285, and 330 (69).

A final version of the hits further compressed the time. The Warren Commission stated that the President was first hit between frames 210-225, and Connally was hit between frames 235-240. Frame 313 was the final hit (70).

In short, the timing of the shots was compressed. This solved the problem of time that the film had created. Zapruder’s movie camera ran at 18 frames per second (71). The scenario rifle required a minimum of 2.3 seconds between shots, or 42 frames (72). The difference between the Commission’s designations of the first hit on the President and the hit on Connally was less than 42 frames, exceeding the rifles capability. If one shot hit both, however, then the Commission avoided the problem of having to deal with another gun and a conspiracy.

But the altered film still left major problems unexplained by the single-bullet hypothesis: 1) the lack of reaction by the President’s guards, who were supposed to protect him; 2) the backward movement of the President’s head after he was struck at frame 313; and 3) Mrs. Kennedy’s crawling across the trunk in panic.

Notes:

1) Abraham Zapruder, “Testimony of Abraham Zapruder [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 570.

2) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated June 4, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 5, p. 139.

3) Calculation by photo triangulation.

4) “…the Secret Service agent…must be able to hit the target under any and all conditions…” (C.B. Colby, Secret Service: History, Duties and Equipment, p. 20.)

According to Merriman Smith, “All [agents on the White House Detail of the Secret Service] are crack shots with either hand. Their pistol marksmanship is tested on one of the toughest ranges in the country. The bull’s-eye of their target is about half the size of the one ordinarily used on police and Army ranges. They must qualify with an unusually high score every thirty days, and if any one of them – or any of the White House police, which falls under Secret Service jurisdiction – falls below a certain marksmanship standard, they are transferred. Agents must also qualify periodically firing from moving vehicles. This accounts for the requirement to shoot well with either hand. A right-handed agent might be clinging to a speeding car with that hand and have to shoot with the left.” (Timothy G. Smith (ed.), op. cit., p. 226.)

In his testimony, Greer claimed he “…made a quick glance and back again,” over his right shoulder, at the time of the second shot. He stated, “My eyes [turned] slightly [to the right] more than my head. My eyes went more than my head around. I had a vision real quick of it.” (Greer, op. cit., v. 2, p. 118.)

One study (1971) of the Zapruder film approximated the direction, clockwise, that the occupants faced in the limousine. In orientation, noon was the front of the car, 6 o’clock was on the trunk, 9 o’clock was the mid-point on the left, and 3 o’clock that on the right of the limousine. Greer was judged to be looking to the right and rear twice. He was in the 4:30 position from frames 282-290, the sequence when Connally is shot; in the 3:30-5 position from frames 303-316, the sequence with the fatal shot.

Another study (1967), made without the film and working only from the frames, estimated Greer to be 40 degrees to his right beginning at frame 240 and extending to 80 degrees from frame 270 through frame 309 (309 was the last frame available to the researcher). (Ronald Christensen, “A Preliminary Analysis of the Pictures of the Kennedy Assassination,” p. 69.)

5) Shaneyfelt, loc. cit.

6) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885. ‘Album of black and white photographs of frames from the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films,’” in Hearings, v. 18, pp. 1-80.

According to FBI Director Hoover, in a letter of Dec. 14, 1965, frames 314 and 315 were transposed in printing. Visually, it appears to reverse the direction of the head movement.

7) In a few of the more sophisticated available copies, splice marks were retouched out. A 16 mm version contained evidence of only one splice.

8) In a few of the more sophisticated copies, color change was consistent throughout the film A 16 mm version, in the Life magazine photo library, is of excellent quality, containing consistent color throughout. This copy, however, does contain evidence of a splice between frames 156-157.

9) Nix film. Muchmore film.

10) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

11) She stated, “And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. And then he sort of did that, put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap.” (President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Report of Proceedings, v. 48, June 5, 1964, p. 6814.)

12) Especially in Life magazine’s 4 x 5 transparency of this frame.

13) John Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 133.

Nellie Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 147.

Commission Document No. 188, p. 6.

Kellerman, op. cit., v. 2, pp. 74, 78.

In an interview with William R. Greer, Greer said, “…my back was covered with it.”

14) This area also displays optical enlargement, especially between frames 317 and 318 (magnification jumps from 1 to 1.3).

15) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

16) Modern Cinematographer, June 1969, pp. 566, 567, 568.

Note: Connally testified, “I had seem what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in hospital in Dallas.” (Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 145.)

17) Abraham Zapruder, Commission Document No. 7 [dated Dec. 4, 1963],” p. 12.

18) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

19) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 751.

20) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

21) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885,” op. cit., v. 18, p. 19.

Note: Life magazine later accepted the blame for this. It said that four frames “…had been accidentally destroyed by its photo lab technicians.” (New York Times, Jan. 30, 1967, p. 22.)

22) Commission Document No. 87, p. 434.

23) Interview with Orville O. Nix in film Rush to Judgment.

24) Commission Document No. 385, p. 70. FBI lab report says Nix’s camera was running at an average speed of 18.5 frames per second.

25) Marie Muchmore. Commission Document No. 735, pp. 124, 103.

26) Mary Moorman. Commission Document No. 5, p. 37.

John Wiseman, “Decker Exhibit No. 5323. ‘Supplementary Investigation Report dated Nov. 23, 1963,’ within Dallas County Sheriff’s Office record…” in Hearings, v. 19, pp. 535-536.

“Commission Exhibit No. 1426, ‘FBI report dated November 23, 1963, of interview of Mary Ann Moorman at Dallas, Tex. (CD 5, pp. 36-37),’” in Hearings, v. 22, p. 839.

27) “Commission Exhibit No. 1426,” loc. cit.

28) Interview with Jean L. Hill.

29) Ibid.

30) Philip L. Willis. Commission Document No. 1245, pp. 44-47.

31) Willis slide number five.

32) Altgens, op. cit., v. 7, p. 519.

33) ABC Television, Nov. 23, 9:00 a.m. Tom O’Brian, ABC News Director.

34) Of the amateurs, an 8 mm color film by Robert J. Hughes does show the depository with the limousine directly below the sixth floor “sniper’s nest.” The FBI examined this film and concluded there was no person in the window (Commission Document No. 205, p. 158.) In addition, “Itek Corporation, a photo-optical electronics firm, concluded the object in the window…was not a person.”

(Life, Nov. 24, 1967, p. 88.) A polaroid photo taken by Jack Weaver, who was standing near Hughes at Main and Houston Streets, was also examined by the FBI with the same negative results (Ibid., p. 175).

35) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 571.

36) Ibid.

37) J. Herbert Sawyer, “Testimony of J. Herbert Sawyer [dated April 8, 1964],’” in Hearings, v. 6, p. 324.

38) Forrest V. Sorrels, op. cit., v. 7, p. 352.

39) Commission Document No. 1014, “Sorrels memo to S.S. Chief Rowley and S.S. Inspector Tom Kelley [dated Jan. 22, 1964].”

40) Dallas Police Department, “Commission Document No. 705. ‘Channel 2’…” op. cit., v. 17, p. 482.

41) Sorrels, loc. cit.

42) Affidavit of P. M. Chamberlain, Jr., Production Supervisor, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

43) Letter of Abraham Zapruder to C.D. Jackson, Publisher, Life magazine, dated Nov. 25, 1963.

44) Affidavit of Frank R. Sloan, Laboratory Manager, Jamieson Film Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

45) Affidavit of Tom Nulty, Production Foreman, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

46) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 575.

47) Commission Document No. 87, “Max D. Phillips, Note of transmittal [undated] 9:55 p.m.”

According to Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, the disposition was “…one copy sent off to Washington and another given to Dallas police. Zapruder kept the original and one print…” (Richard B. Stolley, “What happened next…,” Esquire, November 1973, p. 135.)

48) Interview with Harry D. Holmes.

49) Inspector Kelley. Commission Document No. 1014, op. cit.

50) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138.

51) Agreement between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963.

52) Contract between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963.

Record of physical possession is confused. Zapruder’s agreement of Nov. 23, 1963, reads: “You [Life] agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print.” Life’s agent, Richard B. Stolley, claimed he “…picked up the original of the film and the one remaining copy…” after the agreement was signed. (Stolley, loc. cit.)

53) Ibid.

54) Life, Nov. 29, 1963, p. 24.

Time, Nov. 29, 1963, and Dec. 6, 1963, made no mention of the film although it printed four frames in the latter issue (pp. 33A, 33B.)

55) The issue dated for Nov. 29, 1963, was to have been on sale by Nov. 26, 1963. Although, according to Life, “The editors said that time limitations did not permit reproductions in color,” they also said “…they were unable last night [Nov. 23, 1963] to give precise details as to what the film showed but that they were assured that it depicted the impact of the bullets that struck Mr. Kennedy.” (New York Times, Nov. 24, 1963, p. 5.)

56) Life, Dec. 13, 1963. The Memorial issue is unpaginated.

57) Lifton (ed.), op. cit., p. 72.

58) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138.

59) Life, Oct. 2, 1964, pp. 43-46.

60) Researcher Paul Hoch determined that five versions were issued by Life by comparing the text and captions 3, 5, 6, and 8 on p. 42; picture 6 on p. 45; the text in column 2 and caption of line 3 on p. 47; and 4 captions, lines 1, 9, 13 and 18, on p. 48. Using this method, the authors discovered a sixth version. Vincent J. Salandria noted three versions (“A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes the Shots, Trajectories, and Wounds,” Liberation, January 1965, pp. 6-7.)

61) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit.

62) “Motion Pictures and Film Strips,” Catalog of Copyright Entries, Third Series, v. 21, pts. 12-13, no. 1, January-June 1967, p. 19. Though the film is at least 27 seconds in length, Life, on Oct. 2, 1964, described it as “…an eight second strip…” In the Catalog of Copyright Entries, in 1967, it is listed as 10 seconds in length (p. 42).

Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, claimed it was “…seven seconds of film” (Stolley, loc. cit.) He also said, “…in the beginning of the film…pictured some children at play…” (Ibid., p. 134), a sequence not shown on any film made available to the authors.

63) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit.

64) Emmett J. Hudson, “Testimony of Emmett J. Hudson [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 562.

65) An official use of the film, other than by the Warren Commission, was made by the CIA. It wanted to borrow the FBI’s copy”…for training purposes.” (J. Edgar Hoover, Letter of Dec. 4, 1964.)

66) Dallas Morning News, Nov. 26, 1963, Sect. 4, p. 7.

67) Agent John J. Howlett. Commission Document No. 5, p. 117.

68) “Commission Exhibit No. 585. ‘Surveyor’s plat of the Assassination Scene,’” in Hearings, v. 17, p. 262.

69) Ibid.

70) Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, pp. 105-109.

71) Ibid., p. 97.

Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 153.

“Commission Exhibit No. 2444. ‘FBI report of FBI Laboratory examination of various items relating to the assassination (CD 206, pp. 45-61),’” in Hearings, v. 25, p. 576.

72) Report of the President’s Commission, loc. cit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure thing. My answers in bold-face:

In order to find answers, we need to ask the right questions. Why was the Zapruder original spliced in at least two places?

Because it was damaged in Chicago in the rush to produce the November 29th issue. Someone running a Moviola machine ended up breaking the film in two places.

Why was the Z-film suppressed for so many years from the general public?

Beats me. LIFE's management wasn't telling me about their decisions. They wouldn't permit Berney Geis and me to publish frames after we offered them every penny of book income. Then they sued us and lost.

Why was the copy Geraldo finally aired so grainy when there were much clearer copies available?

How would I know? You should ask Groden. He provided the copy of the film.

Why are there so many anomalies in the Z-film that we can now all view?

Like what?

And, since Tink was involved with LIFE and its early dribbling out of the Z-film to the rest of us, perhaps he could clue us in on how its executives were able to order copies of it for themselves, per the Lancer site?

"Nov. 26: Time-LIFE editors ordered copies of the film for themselves; as a result, bootleg copies were produced."

Guess they had pull with the LIFE photo lab. This is what I heard there in 1966.

http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found this while working on something that has nothing to do with the discussions on this board. I find it inherently interesting and a useful prod to thinking about the Zapruder film.

On September 17, 1977, Chief Counsel Blakey convened a meeting with various critics in Washington, D.C. Sylvia Meagher, Paul Hoch, Peter Dale Scott, me, Mary Ferrell, Larry Harris, Jim Kostman, Gary Shaw and some others. We sat around a big table and the critics discussed with Blakey things HSAC might pursue. After a bit, talk turned to the Zapruder film and I told the group what we had learned about via discovery in the lawsuit brought against us by Time, Inc. A transcript of the discussion that day exists and I was reading it for another purpose. I came across this exchange on pages 146 and 147 of the transcript:

Ms. Ferrell: Jamieson Film Labs was where it was developed. It was not developed at Kodak.

Mr. Thompson: I beg to differ. I have got affidavits from people who worked at Kodak.

Ms. Ferrell: Well, Jamieson Film Labs is in the 26 volumes, it is in documents, and January of 1968 we had an old Vice President of Chrysler visiting us and I didn’t know what to do with him, he just kept sitting, and I thought, well, you are from Detroit. Maybe you are interested in the assassination, that’s the only thing I am interested in. So I said, have you ever seen the Zapruder film, you know, the one taken of the Kennedy assassination. Oh yes, I’ve seen it. And I said when, sir? And he said, well, my sister worked for Jamieson Film Laboratories, and my wife and I visited here Christmas of 1963, and she had a copy, all of them had copies of it.

In essence, the claim comes down to Mary Ferrell saying in September 1977 that she entertained an out-of-town visitor in 1968, a Vice-President of Chrysler. According to Mary Ferrell, he said he had viewed the Zapruder film when he visited his sister in Dallas over Christmas in 1963. His sister worked at Jamieson Film Laboratories and had acquired a copy there as had other employees.

Do I believe that this is a hot lead to an undiscovered and early copy of the Zapruder film? No.

If memory serves, Rollie Zavada learned that exactly three (3) copies of Kodachrome II Type A indoor film were available at the Kodak plant and these were sent over to Jamieson along with Zapruder and his original film. Who knows? Mary Ferrell may have misremembered what she had been told? The Chrysler Vice-President may have been shown some other film of the assassination and thought it was the Zapruder film? This may well turn out to be just another phantom Zapruder film like the one Pamela thought she saw in New York or Rich Dellarossa thought he saw in Maryland.

Or it might be true. Perhaps Jamieson had additional film stock on hand, and, during the copying process, additional copies were made from the original. Some relative of the Vice-President’s sister may be going through cardboard boxes in their attic months from now and discover the copy of the film referred to here. A call will get made to the 6th Floor Museum and we will learn for the first time of the existence of this additional Jamieson copy of the film.

However, my point is quite different. Why try to alter or fake up the Zapruder film when the genie has already escaped from the bottle?

Let’s say you are the mastermind of a plot to make the Kennedy assassination look like the work of a single gunman. Let’s say that no one ever imagined that someone like Zapruder would get up on his pedestal and shoot the assassination as he did. Although Forrest Sorrels did not display great interest in the film he saw at Kodak... Zapruder had to go hunting for him at DPD headquarters on the night of the 22nd... after the film reached the FBI and Secret Service later that night, you are asked to make a command decision: Shall we try to get hold of the film and change it?

The easy and obvious choice is: You seize the film and all its copies. At 11:00 PM that night, Zapruder is home. We know that from the Stolley phone call. You send two agents to his home in the dead of night and they seize the film and its copies. Zapruder would have bitched about it but who cares. Then you would have sent agents to both the Kodak plant and Jamieson to seize any additional copies of the film that had been made. The reason for the seizures: evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.

What makes no sense at all is to let Zapruder sell his film to LIFE, let Stolley courier the original to the printing plant in Chicago and let Zapruder keep a copy. After all this has happened, you politely ask LIFE to borrow their copy in midst of them trying to get out next week’s issue? I don’t think so. Once the film arrives in Chicago, copies are being turned out as part of the production process and the genie is truly out of the bottle.

Of course, the real danger to any attempt to fake up the photo record is the blunt fact that no one can control the photo record of Dealey Plaze. If you fake up film “A,” it won’t match other films taken in the Plaza. It will stand out. And you can never know what films were taken in Dealey Plaza. The attempts to get film evidence by the FBI was desultory at best and these efforts were limited to Dallas. No one could know that a tourist from Omaha or Calgary might have important film that would expose the fraud.

Josiah Thompson

Doug Horne has the provenance figured out for the alleged camera original.

An initial film (Z) was developed by Kodak, because only Kodak could develop Kodachrome.

Kodak could not make duplicate copies, allegedly, so sent Z & group with the original copies to Jamieson, to have 3 copies made.

Jamieson could not develop the original film. Jamieson made only the copies.

Apparently Jamieson secretly made a secret copy for himself.

Jack

PS...I have never believed that Kodak could not make copies of Kodachrome. They had millions of customers and regularly did

processing of originals and COPIES.

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Paul,

Brilliant! You are completely right. This study demonstrates the gross inadequacy of his performance in SIX SECONDS and reinforces the points I have been making. Thank you very much for posting this. I will put it up on the other thread. This is too good for anyone to miss!

Jim

This is the kind of analysis Thompson should have produced in SSID were he remotely interested in the truth of the subject. Compare the quality of observation below with that to be found in SSID. And laugh.
Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974)

Chapter 4: The Filmed Assassination

One of the most important films of the murder was an 8 mm color movie taken by Abraham Zapruder. The Secret Service had first access to his original film, which was then altered in an attempt to cover up the agency’s part in the plot.

Zapruder stood mid-way between the depository and the underpass (1) and filmed the Presidential limousine from the time it turned the corner of Elm and Houston Streets until it reached the triple underpass. His untampered film recorded what occurred inside the vehicle.

A number of copies of the Zapruder film, whose clarity ranged from excellent to poor, including the films and slides at Life magazine and those at the National Archives, were made available to the authors. Each copy was carefully examined and this chapter deals basically with the results of that examination.

A movie is a series of individual pictures, or frames, in consecutive order (2). In describing the film, we refer to numbers assigned to each frame.

Description

The Presidential limousine first appears on available Zapruder film at frame 133, at a point in the street opposite the centre of the depository (3). The President, seated in the back on the right, is waving to the crowd with his right arm. He is hidden from camera view by a freeway sign, beginning at frame 203, and is shot in the throat at approximately frame 207. When he reappears from behind the sign at frame 225, his mouth is open and his hands are raised to his throat. From this point, he starts to lean forward, and to his left, until frame 313, when his head is impacted by a bullet.

Beginning with frame 305, the driver turns around, one hand on the wheel, and faces the President (4), at which point the President’s head is struck by the fatal bullet.

Between frames 313 and 323, the President is slammed backward by the impact of the shot. Between frames 323 and 340, he falls forward, and to his left, into his wife’s lap.

Mrs. Kennedy scrambles out of the limousine, over the trunk, between frames 345 and 375. Her bodyguard, Clinton J. Hill, touches the back of the limousine at frame 345, placing his foot on the car at frame 371, to assist her.

When the Governor reappears from behind the freeway sign at frame 223, he is looking to his right. Then he begins to turn his head forward. Between frames 227 and 230, he raises his hat (the whereabouts of which, possibly containing bullet hole, is unknown) up-and-down in reaction. At frame 233, he starts to raise his left forearm and to turn to his right again. The Governor’s mouth is open. Between frames 255 and 292, he continues to turn his head to the right, exposing his back to the front seat, until he is looking at the President. At frame 285, he is shot. He is then pulled backward by his wife.

After the fatal shot to the President at frame 313, the Governor begins to pull himself up, placing his right hand on the metal handhold on the top of the back of the front seat. At frame 323, he is sitting up, looking into the front seat.

A visible flare on the windshield of the limousine occurs at frame 330 as the result of another shot.

Authentication

For the Warren Commission, an FBI photographic expert numbered each frame of the Zapruder film. The first frame of the motorcade sequence was number “1” and the following frames were counted in order (5).

In its published record of the film, the Commission printed black-and-white photographs of frame 171 through 334. This is just before the limousine disappears behind the freeway sign until just before Mrs. Kennedy begins to climb out of the back seat (6).

The same numbering was used for those available copies of the Zapruder film that the authors examined. Each copy was placed on a viewer that allowed every frame to be seen and counted individually.

The examined copies agreed with the published version. For example, frame 171 of the copies we examined was identical to the published frame 171. The head shot at frame 313 in the copies was the same as frame 313 printed by the Commission.

All available copies were a single, continuous strip of film, without any mechanical splices.

In sum, those available copies matched the film that the Warren Commission viewed.

The original Zapruder film, however, seems to be unavailable.

Cuts

Between the period that Zapruder took his film and the Commission saw it, the film was altered.

Available copies that we examined showed splices present (Fig. 4-3). All splices were photographic, i.e., the mechanical splices of the original were copied onto the duplicates (7).

The following is an inventory of our examination.

Splices in frames 152-159 concern the period after the limousine turned Elm and Houston Streets and before the freeway sign.

Frame 152 is spliced at the bottom of the frame. In the next frame, splices exist at both top and bottom. In addition, the color changes. Instead of the previous warm color, the frames have a bluish cast. A great difference between frames 153 and 152 is indicated by the movement of the limousine: it makes an extremely rapid forward lurch indicating frames are missing here.

Frame 154 has a splice at the top and is bluish in cast. Frame 155 contains a splice at the top third of the frame. Splicing tape marks are present in the foreground of frame 156, which is also bluish; a crude splicing gap appears at the base. A splice may exist at the lower third of frame 159.

The next sequence in which splicing and color change occur is during the that period when the limousine is hidden by the freeway sign.

There is a possible splice in the top eighth of frame 205. Splicing tape adhesive marks are visible on the freeway sign in frame 206. Frame 206 has a bluish cast, as do frames 207-212.

Frame 207 is spliced at the top. A splice may have been made on frame 210 near the bottom. On frame 211, splicing adhesive tape marks are present. Splicing adhesive covers frame 212; a crude cut out is at the base. Frame 213 has a splice at the top; the color changes back to warm hues. At frame 215, a splice line runs across the top fourth of the frame.

Color change indicates that different copies of the film were used to produce one continuous film (8).

A graph, made to show the feet the limousine traveled per frame number, indicates the limousine moved about 20 feet every 20 frames (Fig. 4-4). Between frames 197 and 218, when the limousine is behind the freeway sign, it moved only 10 feet within 21 frames. This means that the limousine either slowed down or stopped between frames 197 and 218. If it stopped then an unaccountable number of frames could have been removed.

Throughout the entire Zapruder film, nothing indicates that frames have been added. What is clear is that frames have been removed. Time has been deleted from the film. With time removed, the film is useless as a clock for the assassination.

Retouching

Retouching has been done with the image of the driver in the film between frames 214-333. It appears after the limousine emerges from behind the freeway sign. Retouching is evident on the front of the limousine windshield on the driver’s side to obscure his movements. The author’s reconstruction film, taken of a car on Elm Street, under similar lighting conditions, on Nov. 22, 1969, at 12:30 p.m., shows the driver’s motions clearly through the windshield.

Retouching may also occur at the top of the freeway sign to obscure the action of the occupants and to hide the shot hitting the President in the throat.

The object in the driver’s hand is barely visible between frames 285 and 297, the sequence of the Governor’s wounds. Between frames 303-317, it is easily seen. The telling feature, especially in the latter sequence, is the action: the driver raises it, seems to aim, and, then, in the frame immediately after the fatal shot to the President in frame 313, brings it down.

Although splicing marks were undetectable about frame 313, it is likely that frames were removed and the remaining retouched. The appearance of frame 313 is vital to the health of the scenario.

Given the forward inclination of the President’s head at the time of the fatal shot (Fig. 4-5), a line drawn through the actual points of entrance and exit is horizontal. If a rifleman fired from above and behind, the line between the points of exit and entrance would be at an angle.

To camouflage evidence of a shot from the front, the actual exit wound at the side of the head (Fig. 4-5) was covered with opaque (Fig. 4-6).

Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other films of the assassination lack this halo (9). The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder film two days [error: three days – PR] after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an exploding head (10). Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony (11).

The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the President’s head (12), not only confuses the features of the head, but also distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground.

The two Secret Service agents in the front seat and both Connallys implied a shot came from the rear by claiming that a substantial amount of debris came forward and down on them (13). No pictorial evidence verifies their claims.

A good indication of removal of frames during the fatal shot sequence is found in the out-of-sequence movements of the legs of a woman running across the lawn in the background. The rhythm of her running is broken unnaturally, e.g., running on her left leg twice, which would indicate frame removal.

Retouching can be seen in a comparison of frames 317 and 321 (Fig. 4-7). The President and his wife appear large in frame 321, even though the dimensions of the two frames are equal in size. Frame 321 was optically enlarged and then reframed. This eliminated material at the right hand side of the picture, such as the driver and the windshield. In addition, it is possible that in frame 321 the windshield was painted-in; it fails to match the windshield in frame 317. In addition, a change in perspective occurs. The line in the back seat in frame 321 has shifted. This means that the limousine has gone further down the street and that an unknown number of frames were removed (14).

Refilming

More evidence of tampering is indicated with the framing of the pictures, especially between frames 280-300. There, the heads of both the President and Connally scarcely appear, and almost disappear from view. This means that the original film was probably refilmed, and reframed, in such a manner as to remove certain material just below their heads.

For example, on the afternoon of Nov. 24, 1963, two days after the assassination, CBS newsman Dan Rather viewed a copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas. His report noted that Connally, as he turned to look back at the President, “…exposed his entire shirt front and chest because his coat was unbuttoned…at that moment a shot very clearly hit that part of the Governor” (15). On available copies, only Connally’s head appears in this sequence.

The possibility exists that the original Zapruder film was refilmed on an optical printer. Modern cinematography laboratories are equipped with optical printing machines that can generate a new negative without the “errors” of the original. Optical printers can insert new frames, skip frames, re-size the images, along with other creative illusions. One hour on the optical printer could eliminate the Connally hit (16).

Deletions

Most available copies, when viewed on a screen as a movie, are slightly jerky, especially in the movement of the limousine. Perhaps the maximum number of cuts was made, the greatest number of frames removed, without making it obvious to the casual viewer.

Certain items could not be altered, such as the President’s head and body snapping backward, without elaborate artwork. But, of those who have seen the film, the cuts are overcome by the way in which people see the movie. The viewer’s focus is usually on the President, not on the other people in the limousine.

Some of the action depicted on the film that was difficult to explain had to be eliminated.

First, the limousine initially appears on available copies some 40 feet down from the top of the street; it literally leaps into view. Yet Zapruder stated that he filmed the limousine as it turned onto Elm St. from Houston St. (17). The copy that CBS reporter Dan Rather saw two days [error: three days – PR] after the assassination apparently had the turn on it because Rather described it (18).

Frames deleted between 152-159 probably showed the decoy shot being fired from the Vice-President’s follow-up car.

Cuts between frames 205-215 likely relate to two areas: reaction to the decoy (first) shot, and the second (throat) shot.

Between frames 207-212, the President seems to swing his head very quickly to his left as if in reaction to the decoy shot. His action would indicate the direction of the Secret Service agent’s revolver as well as sharply contrast with the lack of reaction by those agents in the front seat of the Presidential limousine.

The President’s reaction to the second shot, which hit him in the throat, is missing. Zapruder testified, “…I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area)” (19). CBS reporter Dan Rather said that “…the President lurched forward just a bit, it was obvious he had been hit in the movie…” (20).

The Commission, which received the film from the Secret Service, published frames 207 and 212, both obviously spliced, but failed to print frames 208-211 (21).

The alterations after the fatal shot probably were concerned with eliminating the limousine stop and the rush by Secret Service agents upon it. Indeed, the Secret Service made an effort “…to ascertain whether any [movie news] film could be found showing special agents on the ground alongside the Presidential automobile at any point along the parade route” (22).

Film Confiscation

In other films of the assassination, activity in the front seat of the limousine is either obscured or absent. All known movie films of the murder (except Zapruder’s) omit the sequence where the President was first hit. Confiscation of film explains this less than random pattern; all would not stop their cameras at the same time.

Fig. 4-8 shows the areas of Houston and Elm Streets covered by nine known, amateur movie cameras, tracking the limousine. All of the professional movie cameramen were too far back to take footage of the action, except one.

One amateur said that his 8 mm color film was lost during processing. When it was finally returned, some frames were ruined, others were missing (23). The assassination sequence that reached the FBI had 150 frames, equivalent to eight seconds (24). The limousine was in the amateur’s view for some 20 seconds, not including the time it was stopped.

Another amateur’s 8 mm color movie film contained 66 frames of the assassination, approximately three and one-half seconds (25).

Two Secret Service agents obtained both of a woman’s black-and-white still Polaroid photographs (26). One photograph showed the motorcade with the depository in the background; the other caught the President a split-second after he was struck in the head (27). When the two pictures were returned, her friend thought “some things had been erased” (28). Her friend recalled that the woman took four or five photographs of the motorcade, including “two or three good ones” of the President (29).

A man turned his photographs over to a Secret Service agent who kept them for about one month before returning them (30). Retouching is apparent on a 35 mm colored slide he took about the time of the first shot (31).

James W. Altgens, a professional photographer, took his still black-and-white photographs back to his office at Associated Press, had the film processed, and put on the wire (32). The Secret Service was unable to intercept these.

Altgens snapped four photographs of the limousine as it approached Main and Houston Streets and turned right into Houston Street heading for the depository building. Then, he ran down across the grass triangle in the center of Dealey Plaza and into the sparsely populated assassination zone. Directly across from a grassy knoll, where Zapruder was filming, Altgens stepped from the curb and took a photograph of the approaching limousine approximately midway in the execution. Returning to the curb, he snapped another one of the limousine when it was two or three car lengths past him. These professional quality photographs were to become the clearest taken that day of the limousine on Elm Street.

Altgens moved approximately 240 feet from Main and Houston Streets to snap his Elm St. photograph of the limousine in mid-assassination. The limousine traveled approximately 330 feet during this time. These distances give some indication of the low speed of the motorcade.

A professional movie cameraman, within range, was referred to by an ABC News Director during a TV broadcast. The Director said:

“A tv newsreel man was following in a car just behind the Presidential motorcade and at that particular moment had the President in the frame of his camera. He had it on close-up and he was panning from the Texas Library building [sic]…As soon as he saw the President fall…he then panned up and he said…”If I have on film what I saw through the eye of my camera, I have the complete assassination.” At that particular point…he was picked up by a Secret Serviceman. The Secret Service impounded the film; it was allegedly 16 mm color” (33).

No such film has been located. Such professional quality film would show not only activity in the limousine, but also an empty “sniper’s nest” (34).

Getting the Zapruder Film

How did the Secret Service acquire Zapruder’s film?

After Zapruder completed his filming, he returned to his office and asked his secretary “…to call the police or the Secret Service” (35). Then he went to his desk where he waited “…until the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the film” (36).

An inspector with the Dallas Police Dept. was notified about Zapruder’s film. A sergeant told him that Zapruder refused to give the police the film and was waiting for either the Secret Service or the FBI. The inspector sent the sergeant, with two other men, to bring Zapruder and his movie to him. Instead, the sergeant reported back that Forrest V. Sorrels of the Secret Service was with Zapruder. The inspector then told his men to go about their usual assignments because “…since Forrest was already there and talking to him [Zapruder], I knew that that part would be taken care of” (37).

Sorrels first learned about the film from a crime reporter for the Dallas Morning News (38). According to Sorrels, Zapruder “…agreed to furnish me with a copy of this film with the understanding that it was strictly for official use of the Secret Service…” (39).

Sorrels went to the Dallas Morning News in mid-afternoon (40). He found that the newspaper was unable to develop the film, but did learn that the Eastman Kodak Co., in Dallas, could do so (41).

The Kodak Film Processing Laboratory received “…one 8 mm Kodachrome II Film…” on November 22, and claimed they returned it unaltered to Zapruder. Kodak perforated the identification number 0183 at the “…end of the processed film and carrier strip [leader]…”(42).

Sorrels may have advised Zapruder to have three copies made of the film. Kodak was unable to do so. The Jamieson Film Co. of Dallas, however, could make copies if the 8 mm film was in its original form as a 25-foot roll of 16 mm (8 mm is made by dividing the 16 mm and splicing the two 25 foot rolls together). Zapruder, therefore, had Kodak process the film without splitting it, then took it to Jamieson (43).

Jamieson also received the film on November 22. The company asserted the film remained unaltered during the printing operation. Zapruder received three duplicate copies with the identification number 0183, at the end of the original film, printed onto the three duplicates (44).

Zapruder returned to Kodak where he had the three duplicates processed and developed. They were given the identification numbers 0185, 0186, and 0187 (45). What happened to 0184 is unclear.

Zapruder then had a total of four films, one original and three duplicates. He said he gave Sorrels two copies. Sorrels kept one and another was rushed to Washington, D.C., on November 22, by army plane. (46). Yet, according to a note of transmittal from a Secret Service agent to Secret Service Chief Rowley in Washington, D.C., the disposition was different. The agent stated: “Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the ‘master’ film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded” (47).

Also on Friday evening, November 22, Sorrels did a frame-by-frame study of the Zapruder film in his Dallas office. According to Dallas Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes, who was present, “…we thumbed [through] that thing for an hour or more…push[ing] it up one frame at a time” (48).

The next day, November 23, Sorrels gave a copy to an inspector of the Secret Service who at a later date loaned it to the FBI. The FBI returned it to the inspector, who gave it to Sorrels for the Dallas office of the Secret Service (49).

The FBI was dependent upon the Secret Service for a copy of the film, which it then duplicated for its examination (50). The Secret Service retained the film until the altered version was prepared.

Life

On November 23, 1963, Zapruder made an agreement with Life magazine (51). Two days later, he asked Life to acknowledge receipt of the original and one copy (52). He wrote that the Secret Service had the other two copies, one in Dallas, and one in Washington, D.C. (53).

When did Life acquire physical possession of the film? On November 29, 1963, Life printed some frames. But it only talked of a “…series of pictures…”; it failed to mention that it was a movie and also the name of the man who made it (54).

There are two indications that Life was not in possession of the film. First, the lack of clarity in its reproduction suggests a copy. Second, the magazine enjoyed a reputation for its color printing. The film was in color, but Life’s reproduction was in black-and-white (55).

In its memorial edition of December 13, 1963, Life printed colored reproductions of the film and mentioned “a Dallas clothing manufacturer…[took] pictures with his 8 mm home movie camera: it is from his film that these pictures are taken” (56). Yet three days later, the Warren Commission only saw a series of still photographs made from the film (57). It was not until Feb. 25, 1964, that Life showed its version of the film to the Commission” (58).

It is likely that the Secret Service sanctioned what frames could be printed between 1963 and Sep. 1964, when the Commission issued its report. In the October 2, 1964, issue of Life, which covered the Warren Commission’s report, frame sprockets are missing on the cover and eight frames featured inside (59).

The October 2, 1964, issue of Life appeared in at least six versions (60). Frame 313, with the bursting head, appeared in color in three of the six versions.

Chairman Warren displayed his advance knowledge of the head burst before the Warren Commission on Dec. 16, 1963. “There’s another sequence which they [Life] did not include,” he said, “and it shows the burst of blood and things from his head, blown out” (61). This seems to be the earliest date when certain knowledge was expressed about the manufactured head burst. This frame was not printed in Life until Oct. 2, 1964. CBS reporter Dan Rather, who saw the film in Dallas two days after the assassination, did not mention this dramatic burst. In addition, other movie films of this same sequence failed to record it.

At what point did Life realize that it did not have the original film? It waited until May 1967 to copyright it (62).

Tell-Tale Sign

At some time between Nov. 22, 1963, and Dec. 5, 1963, the Stemmons Freeway sign was re-positioned and raised, invalidating any accurate reconstruction of the crime.

On Dec. 16, 1963, member John J. McCloy commented on it and its significance before a Commission meeting: “You see this sign here,” he said, “pointing to a frame from the Zapruder film, “someone suggested that this sign has now been removed…from the sign you can get a good notion of where the first bullet hit” (63).

It was on July 22, 1964, however, when the Commission interviewed the Dealey Plaza grounds keeper. He commented, “…they have moved some of those signs. They have moved that R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign” (64).

A photograph taken during the Secret Service re-enactment (Fif. 4-9) on Dec. 5, 1963, when compared to Zapruder frame 207 (Fig. 4-10) shows the following. First, the sign had been moved to the right and raised. Second, the angle of the sign to the camera differs from Zapruder’s. The sign’s new position is also shown when the FBI reconstruction photograph of May 24, 1964, (Fig. 4-11), is overlayed with the Secret Service photo of Dec. 5, 1963. The overlay (Fig. 4-12) was made by matching the tree (A), masonry holes (:lol:, and windows © in both.

The FBI apparently tried to have the sign replaced to approximately where it was on Nov. 22, 1963. Note how much of the stand-ins can be seen (Fig. 4-11) as compared to frame 207 (Fig. 4-10). There is also a difference in appearance between the two signs: the sign in frame 207 (Fig. 4-10) has a medium grey tone while that in the Secret Service (Fig. 4-9) and FBI (Fig. 4-11) reconstructions is solid black.

After May 24, 1964, the sign was removed, making any accurate reconstruction of the Zapruder film impossible (65).

Altering Time

The Secret Service produced the first re-enactment tests and surveys. These would be the basis of the information for both the FBI and the Commission, and thereby mislead them.

On Nov. 25, 1963, the Secret Service made a survey in Dealey Plaza to establish bullet trajectories (66).

Two days later, the Secret Service held its first re-enactment. Using a surveyor and the Zapruder film, an agent measured the distance from the eastern window ledge of the depository’s sixth floor to the car. The distance for the neck shot was given as 170 feet, the point at which the view of the car is blocked by the freeway sign. The head shot was stated as 260 feet. He claimed the point where Connally was shot was undeterminable (67).

The Secret Service photographs of its re-enactment show the car at 170 and 260 feet; its map designates these two shots at frames 207 and 375, with frame 330 as the shot for Connally (68).

Again, on Dec. 5, 1963, the Secret Service held another re-enactment. At that time, the car, according to photographs, was positioned at frames 207, 330, and 375. When this was put on a map, they co-ordinated with frames 207, 285, and 330 (69).

A final version of the hits further compressed the time. The Warren Commission stated that the President was first hit between frames 210-225, and Connally was hit between frames 235-240. Frame 313 was the final hit (70).

In short, the timing of the shots was compressed. This solved the problem of time that the film had created. Zapruder’s movie camera ran at 18 frames per second (71). The scenario rifle required a minimum of 2.3 seconds between shots, or 42 frames (72). The difference between the Commission’s designations of the first hit on the President and the hit on Connally was less than 42 frames, exceeding the rifles capability. If one shot hit both, however, then the Commission avoided the problem of having to deal with another gun and a conspiracy.

But the altered film still left major problems unexplained by the single-bullet hypothesis: 1) the lack of reaction by the President’s guards, who were supposed to protect him; 2) the backward movement of the President’s head after he was struck at frame 313; and 3) Mrs. Kennedy’s crawling across the trunk in panic.

Notes:

1) Abraham Zapruder, “Testimony of Abraham Zapruder [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 570.

2) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated June 4, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 5, p. 139.

3) Calculation by photo triangulation.

4) “…the Secret Service agent…must be able to hit the target under any and all conditions…” (C.B. Colby, Secret Service: History, Duties and Equipment, p. 20.)

According to Merriman Smith, “All [agents on the White House Detail of the Secret Service] are crack shots with either hand. Their pistol marksmanship is tested on one of the toughest ranges in the country. The bull’s-eye of their target is about half the size of the one ordinarily used on police and Army ranges. They must qualify with an unusually high score every thirty days, and if any one of them – or any of the White House police, which falls under Secret Service jurisdiction – falls below a certain marksmanship standard, they are transferred. Agents must also qualify periodically firing from moving vehicles. This accounts for the requirement to shoot well with either hand. A right-handed agent might be clinging to a speeding car with that hand and have to shoot with the left.” (Timothy G. Smith (ed.), op. cit., p. 226.)

In his testimony, Greer claimed he “…made a quick glance and back again,” over his right shoulder, at the time of the second shot. He stated, “My eyes [turned] slightly [to the right] more than my head. My eyes went more than my head around. I had a vision real quick of it.” (Greer, op. cit., v. 2, p. 118.)

One study (1971) of the Zapruder film approximated the direction, clockwise, that the occupants faced in the limousine. In orientation, noon was the front of the car, 6 o’clock was on the trunk, 9 o’clock was the mid-point on the left, and 3 o’clock that on the right of the limousine. Greer was judged to be looking to the right and rear twice. He was in the 4:30 position from frames 282-290, the sequence when Connally is shot; in the 3:30-5 position from frames 303-316, the sequence with the fatal shot.

Another study (1967), made without the film and working only from the frames, estimated Greer to be 40 degrees to his right beginning at frame 240 and extending to 80 degrees from frame 270 through frame 309 (309 was the last frame available to the researcher). (Ronald Christensen, “A Preliminary Analysis of the Pictures of the Kennedy Assassination,” p. 69.)

5) Shaneyfelt, loc. cit.

6) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885. ‘Album of black and white photographs of frames from the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films,’” in Hearings, v. 18, pp. 1-80.

According to FBI Director Hoover, in a letter of Dec. 14, 1965, frames 314 and 315 were transposed in printing. Visually, it appears to reverse the direction of the head movement.

7) In a few of the more sophisticated available copies, splice marks were retouched out. A 16 mm version contained evidence of only one splice.

8) In a few of the more sophisticated copies, color change was consistent throughout the film A 16 mm version, in the Life magazine photo library, is of excellent quality, containing consistent color throughout. This copy, however, does contain evidence of a splice between frames 156-157.

9) Nix film. Muchmore film.

10) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

11) She stated, “And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. And then he sort of did that, put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap.” (President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Report of Proceedings, v. 48, June 5, 1964, p. 6814.)

12) Especially in Life magazine’s 4 x 5 transparency of this frame.

13) John Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 133.

Nellie Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 147.

Commission Document No. 188, p. 6.

Kellerman, op. cit., v. 2, pp. 74, 78.

In an interview with William R. Greer, Greer said, “…my back was covered with it.”

14) This area also displays optical enlargement, especially between frames 317 and 318 (magnification jumps from 1 to 1.3).

15) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

16) Modern Cinematographer, June 1969, pp. 566, 567, 568.

Note: Connally testified, “I had seem what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in hospital in Dallas.” (Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 145.)

17) Abraham Zapruder, Commission Document No. 7 [dated Dec. 4, 1963],” p. 12.

18) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

19) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 751.

20) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

21) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885,” op. cit., v. 18, p. 19.

Note: Life magazine later accepted the blame for this. It said that four frames “…had been accidentally destroyed by its photo lab technicians.” (New York Times, Jan. 30, 1967, p. 22.)

22) Commission Document No. 87, p. 434.

23) Interview with Orville O. Nix in film Rush to Judgment.

24) Commission Document No. 385, p. 70. FBI lab report says Nix’s camera was running at an average speed of 18.5 frames per second.

25) Marie Muchmore. Commission Document No. 735, pp. 124, 103.

26) Mary Moorman. Commission Document No. 5, p. 37.

John Wiseman, “Decker Exhibit No. 5323. ‘Supplementary Investigation Report dated Nov. 23, 1963,’ within Dallas County Sheriff’s Office record…” in Hearings, v. 19, pp. 535-536.

“Commission Exhibit No. 1426, ‘FBI report dated November 23, 1963, of interview of Mary Ann Moorman at Dallas, Tex. (CD 5, pp. 36-37),’” in Hearings, v. 22, p. 839.

27) “Commission Exhibit No. 1426,” loc. cit.

28) Interview with Jean L. Hill.

29) Ibid.

30) Philip L. Willis. Commission Document No. 1245, pp. 44-47.

31) Willis slide number five.

32) Altgens, op. cit., v. 7, p. 519.

33) ABC Television, Nov. 23, 9:00 a.m. Tom O’Brian, ABC News Director.

34) Of the amateurs, an 8 mm color film by Robert J. Hughes does show the depository with the limousine directly below the sixth floor “sniper’s nest.” The FBI examined this film and concluded there was no person in the window (Commission Document No. 205, p. 158.) In addition, “Itek Corporation, a photo-optical electronics firm, concluded the object in the window…was not a person.”

(Life, Nov. 24, 1967, p. 88.) A polaroid photo taken by Jack Weaver, who was standing near Hughes at Main and Houston Streets, was also examined by the FBI with the same negative results (Ibid., p. 175).

35) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 571.

36) Ibid.

37) J. Herbert Sawyer, “Testimony of J. Herbert Sawyer [dated April 8, 1964],’” in Hearings, v. 6, p. 324.

38) Forrest V. Sorrels, op. cit., v. 7, p. 352.

39) Commission Document No. 1014, “Sorrels memo to S.S. Chief Rowley and S.S. Inspector Tom Kelley [dated Jan. 22, 1964].”

40) Dallas Police Department, “Commission Document No. 705. ‘Channel 2’…” op. cit., v. 17, p. 482.

41) Sorrels, loc. cit.

42) Affidavit of P. M. Chamberlain, Jr., Production Supervisor, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

43) Letter of Abraham Zapruder to C.D. Jackson, Publisher, Life magazine, dated Nov. 25, 1963.

44) Affidavit of Frank R. Sloan, Laboratory Manager, Jamieson Film Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

45) Affidavit of Tom Nulty, Production Foreman, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

46) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 575.

47) Commission Document No. 87, “Max D. Phillips, Note of transmittal [undated] 9:55 p.m.”

According to Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, the disposition was “…one copy sent off to Washington and another given to Dallas police. Zapruder kept the original and one print…” (Richard B. Stolley, “What happened next…,” Esquire, November 1973, p. 135.)

48) Interview with Harry D. Holmes.

49) Inspector Kelley. Commission Document No. 1014, op. cit.

50) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138.

51) Agreement between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963.

52) Contract between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963.

Record of physical possession is confused. Zapruder’s agreement of Nov. 23, 1963, reads: “You [Life] agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print.” Life’s agent, Richard B. Stolley, claimed he “…picked up the original of the film and the one remaining copy…” after the agreement was signed. (Stolley, loc. cit.)

53) Ibid.

54) Life, Nov. 29, 1963, p. 24.

Time, Nov. 29, 1963, and Dec. 6, 1963, made no mention of the film although it printed four frames in the latter issue (pp. 33A, 33B.)

55) The issue dated for Nov. 29, 1963, was to have been on sale by Nov. 26, 1963. Although, according to Life, “The editors said that time limitations did not permit reproductions in color,” they also said “…they were unable last night [Nov. 23, 1963] to give precise details as to what the film showed but that they were assured that it depicted the impact of the bullets that struck Mr. Kennedy.” (New York Times, Nov. 24, 1963, p. 5.)

56) Life, Dec. 13, 1963. The Memorial issue is unpaginated.

57) Lifton (ed.), op. cit., p. 72.

58) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138.

59) Life, Oct. 2, 1964, pp. 43-46.

60) Researcher Paul Hoch determined that five versions were issued by Life by comparing the text and captions 3, 5, 6, and 8 on p. 42; picture 6 on p. 45; the text in column 2 and caption of line 3 on p. 47; and 4 captions, lines 1, 9, 13 and 18, on p. 48. Using this method, the authors discovered a sixth version. Vincent J. Salandria noted three versions (“A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes the Shots, Trajectories, and Wounds,” Liberation, January 1965, pp. 6-7.)

61) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit.

62) “Motion Pictures and Film Strips,” Catalog of Copyright Entries, Third Series, v. 21, pts. 12-13, no. 1, January-June 1967, p. 19. Though the film is at least 27 seconds in length, Life, on Oct. 2, 1964, described it as “…an eight second strip…” In the Catalog of Copyright Entries, in 1967, it is listed as 10 seconds in length (p. 42).

Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, claimed it was “…seven seconds of film” (Stolley, loc. cit.) He also said, “…in the beginning of the film…pictured some children at play…” (Ibid., p. 134), a sequence not shown on any film made available to the authors.

63) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit.

64) Emmett J. Hudson, “Testimony of Emmett J. Hudson [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 562.

65) An official use of the film, other than by the Warren Commission, was made by the CIA. It wanted to borrow the FBI’s copy”…for training purposes.” (J. Edgar Hoover, Letter of Dec. 4, 1964.)

66) Dallas Morning News, Nov. 26, 1963, Sect. 4, p. 7.

67) Agent John J. Howlett. Commission Document No. 5, p. 117.

68) “Commission Exhibit No. 585. ‘Surveyor’s plat of the Assassination Scene,’” in Hearings, v. 17, p. 262.

69) Ibid.

70) Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, pp. 105-109.

71) Ibid., p. 97.

Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 153.

“Commission Exhibit No. 2444. ‘FBI report of FBI Laboratory examination of various items relating to the assassination (CD 206, pp. 45-61),’” in Hearings, v. 25, p. 576.

72) Report of the President’s Commission, loc. cit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Brilliant! You are completely right. This study demonstrates the gross inadequacy of his performance in SIX SECONDS and reinforces the points I have been making. Thank you very much for posting this. I will put it up on the other thread. This is too good for anyone to miss!

Jim

Hi Jim!

Josiah's initial post in this thread, was a thoughtful, straightforward commentary that clearly raises points that anyone taking issue with the pedigree of the Zapruder film would have to ... and should *want* to ... address.

I am interested in your comments on just the issues his comments raised ... particularly the problem of altering a film that has already left the barn, AND the totally uncontrollable problem of the existence of other films and photos unknown to those working to perpetrate a film fraud in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

Without thoughtful consideration of these issues, how can moving forward without some plausible response to these sorts of issues be taken as anything other than "gross inadequacy" when it comes to a real search for the truth? First things first, and all that. <g>

Your comments on just those two issues would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks ... and Happy New Year,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to find answers, we need to ask the right questions. Why was the Zapruder original spliced in at least two places? Why was the Z-film suppressed for so many years from the general public? Why was the copy Geraldo finally aired so grainy when there were much clearer copies available? Why are there so many anomalies in the Z-film that we can now all view?

And, since Tink was involved with LIFE and its early dribbling out of the Z-film to the rest of us, perhaps he could clue us in on how its executives were able to order copies of it for themselves, per the Lancer site?

"Nov. 26: Time-LIFE editors ordered copies of the film for themselves; as a result, bootleg copies were produced."

http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html

Hi Pamela,

There ARE "right"questions that must be asked. And Josiah's comments raise the initial "right" questions that really must have plausible answers before one can move on to considering alteration.

I am interested in your thoughts on:

1. How plotters could extensively alter the Z film (and extensively is what is theorized) given that copies of the film had already been made and dispersed, Zapruder had a copy himself, and Life had the original ... and none of these copies were seized?

2. How the Zapruder film could be essentially recreated knowing it would be in conflict with other known films and photos taken by a number of people that day?

3. How could plotters proceed with altering the Zapruder film with any number of films and photos taken that day that remained unknown to them?

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found this while working on something that has nothing to do with the discussions on this board. I find it inherently interesting and a useful prod to thinking about the Zapruder film.

On September 17, 1977, Chief Counsel Blakey convened a meeting with various critics in Washington, D.C. Sylvia Meagher, Paul Hoch, Peter Dale Scott, me, Mary Ferrell, Larry Harris, Jim Kostman, Gary Shaw and some others. We sat around a big table and the critics discussed with Blakey things HSAC might pursue. After a bit, talk turned to the Zapruder film and I told the group what we had learned about via discovery in the lawsuit brought against us by Time, Inc. A transcript of the discussion that day exists and I was reading it for another purpose. I came across this exchange on pages 146 and 147 of the transcript:

Ms. Ferrell: Jamieson Film Labs was where it was developed. It was not developed at Kodak.

Mr. Thompson: I beg to differ. I have got affidavits from people who worked at Kodak.

Ms. Ferrell: Well, Jamieson Film Labs is in the 26 volumes, it is in documents, and January of 1968 we had an old Vice President of Chrysler visiting us and I didn’t know what to do with him, he just kept sitting, and I thought, well, you are from Detroit. Maybe you are interested in the assassination, that’s the only thing I am interested in. So I said, have you ever seen the Zapruder film, you know, the one taken of the Kennedy assassination. Oh yes, I’ve seen it. And I said when, sir? And he said, well, my sister worked for Jamieson Film Laboratories, and my wife and I visited here Christmas of 1963, and she had a copy, all of them had copies of it.

In essence, the claim comes down to Mary Ferrell saying in September 1977 that she entertained an out-of-town visitor in 1968, a Vice-President of Chrysler. According to Mary Ferrell, he said he had viewed the Zapruder film when he visited his sister in Dallas over Christmas in 1963. His sister worked at Jamieson Film Laboratories and had acquired a copy there as had other employees.

Do I believe that this is a hot lead to an undiscovered and early copy of the Zapruder film? No.

If memory serves, Rollie Zavada learned that exactly three (3) copies of Kodachrome II Type A indoor film were available at the Kodak plant and these were sent over to Jamieson along with Zapruder and his original film. Who knows? Mary Ferrell may have misremembered what she had been told? The Chrysler Vice-President may have been shown some other film of the assassination and thought it was the Zapruder film? This may well turn out to be just another phantom Zapruder film like the one Pamela thought she saw in New York or Rich Dellarossa thought he saw in Maryland.

Or it might be true. Perhaps Jamieson had additional film stock on hand, and, during the copying process, additional copies were made from the original. Some relative of the Vice-President’s sister may be going through cardboard boxes in their attic months from now and discover the copy of the film referred to here. A call will get made to the 6th Floor Museum and we will learn for the first time of the existence of this additional Jamieson copy of the film.

However, my point is quite different. Why try to alter or fake up the Zapruder film when the genie has already escaped from the bottle?

Let’s say you are the mastermind of a plot to make the Kennedy assassination look like the work of a single gunman. Let’s say that no one ever imagined that someone like Zapruder would get up on his pedestal and shoot the assassination as he did. Although Forrest Sorrels did not display great interest in the film he saw at Kodak... Zapruder had to go hunting for him at DPD headquarters on the night of the 22nd... after the film reached the FBI and Secret Service later that night, you are asked to make a command decision: Shall we try to get hold of the film and change it?

The easy and obvious choice is: You seize the film and all its copies. At 11:00 PM that night, Zapruder is home. We know that from the Stolley phone call. You send two agents to his home in the dead of night and they seize the film and its copies. Zapruder would have bitched about it but who cares. Then you would have sent agents to both the Kodak plant and Jamieson to seize any additional copies of the film that had been made. The reason for the seizures: evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.

What makes no sense at all is to let Zapruder sell his film to LIFE, let Stolley courier the original to the printing plant in Chicago and let Zapruder keep a copy. After all this has happened, you politely ask LIFE to borrow their copy in midst of them trying to get out next week’s issue? I don’t think so. Once the film arrives in Chicago, copies are being turned out as part of the production process and the genie is truly out of the bottle.

Of course, the real danger to any attempt to fake up the photo record is the blunt fact that no one can control the photo record of Dealey Plaze. If you fake up film “A,” it won’t match other films taken in the Plaza. It will stand out. And you can never know what films were taken in Dealey Plaza. The attempts to get film evidence by the FBI was desultory at best and these efforts were limited to Dallas. No one could know that a tourist from Omaha or Calgary might have important film that would expose the fraud.

Josiah Thompson

I note with amusement how similar is the above to the kinds of grotesquely leading questions posed to witnesses, most notably the Parkland doctors, by Warren Commission lawyers. Still, it's worth examining a few of Thompson's assumptions if only to expose them.

1) Why try to alter or fake up the Zapruder film when the genie has already escaped from the bottle?

This assumes the original version of the Zapruder film was a genuine record of what transpired on Elm. Zapruder's WFAA-TV description of the headwound - he famously mislocated it - together with the descriptions of the first version of the Z fake furnished by Dan Rather et al are not reassuring on this score. The preplanned narrative - and film? - were at pains, for example, to persuade us the presidential limo never stopped. The first version of the Z fake was indeed junked, largely because of what the Parkland doctors had to say. This suppression permitted the campaign by journalists like Snider and Mandel to embark upon that preposterous attempt to harmonise the Parkland doctors' description of front entry wounds with the bogus film. The upshot resulted, among other alterations, in the removal of the left turn of the presidential limo from Houston onto Elm.

2) Let’s say you are the mastermind of a plot to make the Kennedy assassination look like the work of a single gunman.

This a hugely important point. The plot was not so simple-minded. It had built within it a fall-back deception, the grassy knoll. In short, there was an inner and an outer layer of deception. xxxxx the first, think yourself clever, and lo, you met the second or inner deceit. Nor should this be any surprise, given the background and world-view of men like Dulles and Angleton. Both had vast experience of false flag ops, pseudo-gangs, and controlled oppositions. The assassination research community was assidously steered in the direction of the grassy knoll to lead us away from the centrality of Kennedy's SS detail to his murder. Thompson knows this because he suppressed for SSID readers the import of the clearest testimony to the role of the SS in leading the charge up the grassy knoll.

3) Let’s say that no one ever imagined that someone like Zapruder would get up on his pedestal and shoot the assassination as he did.

Er, why? What research did Thompson conduct on Zapruder's pre-assination contacts and milieu? And if he did, where is it; and why has he never published it? The available evidence suggests Zapruder's presence was anything but accidental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found this while working on something that has nothing to do with the discussions on this board. I find it inherently interesting and a useful prod to thinking about the Zapruder film.

On September 17, 1977, Chief Counsel Blakey convened a meeting with various critics in Washington, D.C. Sylvia Meagher, Paul Hoch, Peter Dale Scott, me, Mary Ferrell, Larry Harris, Jim Kostman, Gary Shaw and some others. We sat around a big table and the critics discussed with Blakey things HSAC might pursue. After a bit, talk turned to the Zapruder film and I told the group what we had learned about via discovery in the lawsuit brought against us by Time, Inc. A transcript of the discussion that day exists and I was reading it for another purpose. I came across this exchange on pages 146 and 147 of the transcript:

Ms. Ferrell: Jamieson Film Labs was where it was developed. It was not developed at Kodak.

Mr. Thompson: I beg to differ. I have got affidavits from people who worked at Kodak.

Ms. Ferrell: Well, Jamieson Film Labs is in the 26 volumes, it is in documents, and January of 1968 we had an old Vice President of Chrysler visiting us and I didn’t know what to do with him, he just kept sitting, and I thought, well, you are from Detroit. Maybe you are interested in the assassination, that’s the only thing I am interested in. So I said, have you ever seen the Zapruder film, you know, the one taken of the Kennedy assassination. Oh yes, I’ve seen it. And I said when, sir? And he said, well, my sister worked for Jamieson Film Laboratories, and my wife and I visited here Christmas of 1963, and she had a copy, all of them had copies of it.

In essence, the claim comes down to Mary Ferrell saying in September 1977 that she entertained an out-of-town visitor in 1968, a Vice-President of Chrysler. According to Mary Ferrell, he said he had viewed the Zapruder film when he visited his sister in Dallas over Christmas in 1963. His sister worked at Jamieson Film Laboratories and had acquired a copy there as had other employees.

Do I believe that this is a hot lead to an undiscovered and early copy of the Zapruder film? No.

If memory serves, Rollie Zavada learned that exactly three (3) copies of Kodachrome II Type A indoor film were available at the Kodak plant and these were sent over to Jamieson along with Zapruder and his original film. Who knows? Mary Ferrell may have misremembered what she had been told? The Chrysler Vice-President may have been shown some other film of the assassination and thought it was the Zapruder film? This may well turn out to be just another phantom Zapruder film like the one Pamela thought she saw in New York or Rich Dellarossa thought he saw in Maryland.

Or it might be true. Perhaps Jamieson had additional film stock on hand, and, during the copying process, additional copies were made from the original. Some relative of the Vice-President’s sister may be going through cardboard boxes in their attic months from now and discover the copy of the film referred to here. A call will get made to the 6th Floor Museum and we will learn for the first time of the existence of this additional Jamieson copy of the film.

However, my point is quite different. Why try to alter or fake up the Zapruder film when the genie has already escaped from the bottle?

Let’s say you are the mastermind of a plot to make the Kennedy assassination look like the work of a single gunman. Let’s say that no one ever imagined that someone like Zapruder would get up on his pedestal and shoot the assassination as he did. Although Forrest Sorrels did not display great interest in the film he saw at Kodak... Zapruder had to go hunting for him at DPD headquarters on the night of the 22nd... after the film reached the FBI and Secret Service later that night, you are asked to make a command decision: Shall we try to get hold of the film and change it?

The easy and obvious choice is: You seize the film and all its copies. At 11:00 PM that night, Zapruder is home. We know that from the Stolley phone call. You send two agents to his home in the dead of night and they seize the film and its copies. Zapruder would have bitched about it but who cares. Then you would have sent agents to both the Kodak plant and Jamieson to seize any additional copies of the film that had been made. The reason for the seizures: evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.

What makes no sense at all is to let Zapruder sell his film to LIFE, let Stolley courier the original to the printing plant in Chicago and let Zapruder keep a copy. After all this has happened, you politely ask LIFE to borrow their copy in midst of them trying to get out next week’s issue? I don’t think so. Once the film arrives in Chicago, copies are being turned out as part of the production process and the genie is truly out of the bottle.

Of course, the real danger to any attempt to fake up the photo record is the blunt fact that no one can control the photo record of Dealey Plaze. If you fake up film “A,” it won’t match other films taken in the Plaza. It will stand out. And you can never know what films were taken in Dealey Plaza. The attempts to get film evidence by the FBI was desultory at best and these efforts were limited to Dallas. No one could know that a tourist from Omaha or Calgary might have important film that would expose the fraud.

Josiah Thompson

I note with amusement how similar is the above to the kinds of grotesquely leading questions posed to witnesses, most notably the Parkland doctors, by Warren Commission lawyers. Still, it's worth examining a few of Thompson's assumptions if only to expose them.

1) Why try to alter or fake up the Zapruder film when the genie has already escaped from the bottle?

This assumes the original version of the Zapruder film was a genuine record of what transpired on Elm. Zapruder's WFAA-TV description of the headwound - he famously mislocated it - together with the descriptions of the first version of the Z fake furnished by Dan Rather et al are not reassuring on this score. The preplanned narrative - and film? - were at pains, for example, to persuade us the presidential limo never stopped. The first version of the Z fake was indeed junked, largely because of what the Parkland doctors had to say. This suppression permitted the campaign by journalists like Snider and Mandel to embark upon that preposterous attempt to harmonise the Parkland doctors' description of front entry wounds with the bogus film. The upshot resulted, among other alterations, in the removal of the left turn of the presidential limo from Houston onto Elm.

2) Let’s say you are the mastermind of a plot to make the Kennedy assassination look like the work of a single gunman.

This a hugely important point. The plot was not so simple-minded. It had built within it a fall-back deception, the grassy knoll. In short, there was an inner and an outer layer of deception. xxxxx the first, think yourself clever, and lo, you met the second or inner deceit. Nor should this be any surprise, given the background and world-view of men like Dulles and Angleton. Both had vast experience of false flag ops, pseudo-gangs, and controlled oppositions. The assassination research community was assidously steered in the direction of the grassy knoll to lead us away from the centrality of Kennedy's SS detail to his murder. Thompson knows this because he suppressed for SSID readers the import of the clearest testimony to the role of the SS in leading the charge up the grassy knoll.

3) Let’s say that no one ever imagined that someone like Zapruder would get up on his pedestal and shoot the assassination as he did.

Er, why? What research did Thompson conduct on Zapruder's pre-assination contacts and milieu? And if he did, where is it; and why has he never published it? The available evidence suggests Zapruder's presence was anything but accidental.

"Thompson knows this because he suppressed for SSID readers the import of the clearest testimony to the role of the SS in leading the charge up the grassy knoll."

Could you explain/elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Thompson knows this because he suppressed for SSID readers the import of the clearest testimony to the role of the SS in leading the charge up the grassy knoll."

Could you explain/elaborate?

Gladly.

First, Thompson’s summaries of the Franzens’ statements, as contained within SSID:

Mrs. Franzen, witness 54, p.258:

Location: N. side of Elm

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/25/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: 24H525

Remarks: After 1st shot, notice small fragments flying inside the car.

Mr. Franzen, witness 53, p.258:

Location: N. side of Elm

No. of shots: 3 or 4

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/24/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: Archives, CD 5, p.46; 22H840

Remarks: After 1st shot, notice small fragments flying inside the car.

Now for Mrs. Franzens’ testimony, edited for pith, from 24H525. She was interviewed on the day of the assassination by FBI men Ellington and Loeffler, who dictated their notes for transcription three days later, on November 25. Is Thompson’s summary remotely fair or adequate, even given its limitation of length?

“Shortly after the President’s automobile passed by…she heard a noise which sounded to her as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile…at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile…

She advised she heard two other sounds which sounded like shots from a firearm and noticed blood appearing on the side of President Kennedy’s head.

She does not remember looking at the building housing the Texas School Book Depository…she observed police officers and plain-clothes men, whom she assumed were Secret Service Agents, searching an area adjacent to the TSBD Building, from which area she assumed the shots had come…

She advised her small son called her attention to the fact that some of the men in the automobile behind the President’s car were holding guns in their hands shortly after the shots…and stated she assumed these men were Secret Service Agents.”

http://www.jfk-online.com/mrsfranzen.html

It is perfectly clear that Mrs Franzen’s testimony was of no use to proponents of Zapruder film authenticity for at least three reasons:

1) The position of the Presidential limousine on Elm when the shooting began was too far down toward the underpass (“Shortly after the President’s automobile passed by…she heard a noise”);

2) The point of origin of that noise “which sounded as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile” (i.e. it originated within the presidential limousine);

3) More than one Secret Service agent in the follow-up car drew a weapon.

Thompson thus had, in composing Six Seconds in 1966/67, a direct, obvious interest in quashing, minimising or redirecting elsewhere reader interest in any and all testimony pointing to 1), 2), and 3) for no such actions and/or features featured in the revised Zapruder fake, the authenticity of which he was, unquestionably, selling.

Worse still, from the point of view of those determined to peddle the revised Z fake to the world, was Mrs Franzen’s husband’s testimony. It was offered to the same FBI duo, and on the same day, as his wife’s. And again, I’ve edited it for essence:

“He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and noticed small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile…He noticed men, who were presumed to be Secret Service agents, riding in the car directly behind the President’s car, unloading from the car, some with firearms in their hands, and noticed police officers and these plainclothesmen running up the grassy slope across Elm Street from his location – and toward a wooded and busy area located across the Elm Street from him…Because of this activity he presumed the shots…came from the shrubbery or bushes toward which these officers appeared to be running.”

Touchingly, Franzen concluded:

Mr Franzen advised he is aware that the information which he has furnished may not be of any particular significance but advised in view of his close proximity to the President’s vehicle at the time of these shots…”

http://www.jfk-online.com/franzen.html

Jack Franzen not merely confirmed his wife’s testimony concerning an explosion occurring inside the presidential limousine, but also described Secret Servicemen, some of them armed, leaving the follow-up vehicle, whereupon some of them ran up the knoll causing him to doubt his initial reaction as to the shot point of origin. An intellectually honest summary of the Franzens’ testimonies, therefore, would look something like this:

Mrs. Franzen:

Location: S. side of Elm, towards underpass

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: ---

Origin of sound/shots: Initially, inside the car; revised to TSBD due to subsequent search activities of SS & uniformed police

Date of interview: 11/22/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: 24H525

Other salient observations: Shooting commenced after presidential limousine passed her; SS men in follow-up vehicle drew weapons (attrib. to son).

Mr. Franzen:

Location: S. side of Elm, towards underpass

No. of shots: 3 or 4

Bunching of shots: ---

Origin of sound/shots: Initially, inside the car; revised to knoll by subsequent search of SS and uniformed police

Date of report: 11/24/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: Archives, CD 5, p.46; 22H840

Other salient observations: Some SS men in follow-up vehicle, some of them armed, raced up knoll in immediate aftermath of shooting.

The Warren Commissioners never called the Franzens to testify, and the compilers of the Hearings volumes, as we have seen, split their largely congruent testimony, publishing hers in volume 24, and his in volume 22.

Incredibly, Thompson, that unprecedentedly attentive student of the film, and nominal opponent of the cover-up, was even more cavalier with their names (he misspelt the family surname with a “t” in his table), locations and testimony. He placed all three Franzens on the wrong side of Elm, which just happened to “lose” them in the more populous north side; then offered thoroughly misleading summaries of their testimonies; and, like the Warren Reports compilers, ignored their testimony in the main body of Six Seconds’ text.

This latter point is a profoundly significant one. The principle or principles of selection by which Thompson focused on the testimony of some eyewitnesses, while ignoring that emanating, in important cases, from the even better placed, are nowhere articulated and defended in Six Seconds, but can be inferred: If they matched the thesis advanced in his book, they were in.

In Six Seconds, Thompson served as a classic establishment gate-keeper, masquerading as critic. He was not alone in the literature of the assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep making things up.

I didn't have "unlimited access" to "clear copies" of the Zapruder film. The 4" by 5" transparencies never left the offices of LIFE magazine. I was in Philadelphia. LIFE was in New York. I never spent "hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it." My total time studying these transparencies was probably something like four or five hours, all this in November and December 1966. I was told the transparencies were made from the camera original film and not a copy.

Are you making all this up to try to portray me as "suspect" in some way? Fetzer does that quite a bit. Why? Is this really just because we intruded into your turf on the windshield and put out information you were not aware of concerning two witnesses? I would have thought you would have been happy about what Barb Junkarrinen, Jerry Logan and I put together since it made your own position stronger.

Josiah Thompson

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep making things up.

I didn't have "unlimited access" to "clear copies" of the Zapruder film. The 4" by 5" transparencies never left the offices of LIFE magazine. I was in Philadelphia. LIFE was in New York. I never spent "hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it." My total time studying these transparencies was probably something like four or five hours, all this in November and December 1966. I was told the transparencies were made from the camera original film and not a copy.

Are you making all this up to try to portray me as "suspect" in some way? Fetzer does that quite a bit. Why? Is this really just because we intruded into your turf on the windshield and put out information you were not aware of concerning two witnesses? I would have thought you would have been happy about what Barb Junkarrinen, Jerry Logan and I put together since it made your own position stronger.

Josiah Thompson

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

Josiah, I, too am surprised by the continued attacks on your integrity. But I think I've identified part of the problem. Most of the researchers, here and elsewhere, prefer to believe our cumulative knowledge is growing, and the case for conspiracy is getting stronger. And you have failed to embrace any "discoveries" made in recent years, and appear to have actually backpedaled from some of your earlier discoveries. Now, I know you worked with Aguilar on CE 399 a few years back, and that this led to some interesting discoveries suggesting that the darned bullet was not even the bullet found on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher. So I know you're not adverse to "new" developments...

So I guess what I'm saying is that some of the doubts about you would dry up if you were to come forward with something that added to the case for conspiracy... Anything on the horizon? Please say yes.

***Upon closer review of Josiah's recent posts it's clear he subscribes to Don Thomas' claim Z-313 shows a jiggle response, and that this indicates the shot was fired from nearby, and not the TSBD. This answers my question, and ought to end any speculation about his turning into a LNer anytime soon.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep making things up.

I didn't have "unlimited access" to "clear copies" of the Zapruder film. The 4" by 5" transparencies never left the offices of LIFE magazine. I was in Philadelphia. LIFE was in New York. I never spent "hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it." My total time studying these transparencies was probably something like four or five hours, all this in November and December 1966. I was told the transparencies were made from the camera original film and not a copy.

Are you making all this up to try to portray me as "suspect" in some way? Fetzer does that quite a bit. Why? Is this really just because we intruded into your turf on the windshield and put out information you were not aware of concerning two witnesses? I would have thought you would have been happy about what Barb Junkarrinen, Jerry Logan and I put together since it made your own position stronger.

Josiah Thompson

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

With all due respect here Tink I think you're missing the point.

Pamela's next line is "I saw Josiah Thompson speaking with the devil."

Best to you,

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...