Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Stolley take with him both the original and Zapruder's only copy? No.


Recommended Posts

Given the mutability of human memory, it’s always useful to have documents signed at particular times. So with the provenance of the Zapruder film.

Dick Stolley has said and certainly believes that he left Zapruder’s office on the morning of November 23rd with both the camera-original film and one of the Jamieson copies. Both Dan Rather’s viewing of the film on Monday afternoon and signed agreements between Stolley and Zapruder indicate the opposite. Stolley most likely left Zapruder’s office on November 23rd with the camera original. It was only Monday afternoon... after Dan Rather had viewed Zapruder’s copy... that Stolley left Zapruder’s office with the remaining Jamieson copy. The written record establishes this interpretation.

Here is the written, signed contract between Stolley and Zapruder from November 23, 1963:

Nov. 23, 1963

In consideration of the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.), I grant LIFE Magazine exclusive world wide print media rights to my original 8 mm color film which shows the shooting of President Kennedy in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. I retain all motion picture rights, but agree not to release the film for motion picture, television, newsreel, etc., use until Friday, Nov. 29, 1963. You agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print.

Abraham Zapruder

Agreed to:

Richard B. Stolley

LIFE Magazine

Witnesses

[Lillian Roger, Erwin Schwartz]

If Stolley walked out of the office with both the camera original film and Zapruder’s remaining Jamieson copy, why would the agreement specify “you agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print”? Moreover, this agreement specifically envisages Zapruder selling the “motion picture, television, newsreel, etc., use” to a third party. To do that, Zapruder would have to retain a copy to show a prospective buyer. No one would be willing to plunk down the kind of money Zapruder would want without first seeing what they were buying. But by this time, Zapruder had given two copies to the Secret Service. He would have to hold onto the copy he retained in order to have something to show a prospective buyer.

Monday afternoon Dan Rather gets to view Zapruder’s remaining copy of the Zapruder film. That same afternoon, Zapruder signs with Stolley a new contract for universal rights to the Zapruder rights. This contract triples the purchase price and is a several-page-long letter from Zapruder to the publisher of LIFE magazine. The letter agreement states:

“You [that is, LIFE’s publisher] acknowledge receipt through your agent of the original and one (1) copy thereof, and it is understood that there are two (2) other copies, one (1) of which is with the Secret Service in Dallas, Texas, and one (1) copy of which is with the Secret Service in Washington, D.C.”

Along with the contract, Zapruder signed a letter affirming the authenticity of the original and certifying that three and only three copies had been made. Zapruder also submitted with his certification affidavits from personnel at the Kodak lab and Jamieson Film Company stating that three and only three copies had been made.

The importance of knowing that the remaining Jamieson copy remained in Zapruder’s custody through the weekend until Monday afternoon is that it underlines the problem any conspirator would face in getting the genie back in the bottle. From Saturday morning on, Stolley and LIFE magazine in Chicago had the camera original of the film. One copy had been flown by the Secret Service to Washington, D.C. Another copy rested in the custody of the Secret Service in Dallas. A final copy resided with Zapruder in Dallas until he turned it over to Stolley on Monday afternoon. This was the copy shown to family members over the weekend and seen by Dan Rather Monday afternoon.

Given this complex web with various copies in various locations and no certainty as to where they would end up, the only plausible action for a conspirator who wanted to alter the film would have been to seize it as evidence. That might have worked. Agents would have appeared at Zapruder’s home on Saturday or Sunday and demanded the remaining copy of the film. Other agents would have appeared at the Donnelly printing plant in Chicago and demanded the camera original. The Zapruder film would have disappeared into the maw of government possession only to reappear if and when the purported conspirators wanted it to appear.. if ever.

Horne posits the possibility of government agents appearing at the Donnelly plant in Chicago in the midst of LIFE preparing its November 29th issue and asking to “borrow” the camera original. As Horne points out, LIFE had dispatched Assistant Managing Editor Roy Rowan, writer John Dilles, Associate Art Director David Stech and layout artist John Geist to set up shop in the Donnelly printing plant in Chicago. In Chicago, numerous black and white prints were made by a Chicago photo lab and some of them selected for publication in the issue then going to press. Under these circumstances, that LIFE magazine would part with the camera original on the basis of a request to borrow it for awhile... it just doesn’t pass the smell test. And the remaining copy in Zapruder’s hands, the copy that he is retaining in hopes of selling it as a film to some network, what about it? Once a network buys it and broadcasts it, the genie has flown.

If a decision had been made to alter the Zapruder film, then the only effective way of doing it would be to seize it. This would have been palatable to the American public at the time and would have given whatever dark forces one imagines control of the situation. The scenario purported by Horne leaves numerous pieces of the puzzle far out of the conspirators control. Seizure was the only way to get the genie back in the bottle. Yet seizure did not occur. What does that tell us?

Josiah Thompson

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Unfortunately, Tink is choosing to fall prey to the fallacy of false alternatives. In addition, he chooses not to ask questions that will elicit a valuable answer. Based on all existing information, including my own experience with an early viewing of a bootleg copy, the question that needs to be asked is, "what really happened with the Zapruder film?" Leaving the question open-ended makes it possible for the mass of seemingly contradictory information to be evaluated objectively.

In fact, since Tink was involved closely with LIFE and its publication of the missing Z-frames for SSID, not to mention their allowing him to publish sketches of many of the early frames, perhaps he was a witness to what was actually going on and how bootleg copies were made and distributed at the very least to LIFE executives, per the Lancer forum:

"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

Until Tink is willing to open the door to the possibility of the film being maliciously altered (everyone knows it was altered by splicing in at least two places) it is unlikely that he will produce anything more than additional hand-slapping of those of us who insist that it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the mutability of human memory, it’s always useful to have documents signed at particular times. So with the provenance of the Zapruder film.

Dick Stolley has said and certainly believes that he left Zapruder’s office on the morning of November 23rd with both the camera-original film and one of the Jamieson copies. Both Dan Rather’s viewing of the film on Monday afternoon and signed agreements between Stolley and Zapruder indicate the opposite. Stolley most likely left Zapruder’s office on November 23rd with the camera original. It was only Monday afternoon... after Dan Rather had viewed Zapruder’s copy... that Stolley left Zapruder’s office with the remaining Jamieson copy. The written record establishes this interpretation.

Here is the written, signed contract between Stolley and Zapruder from November 23, 1963:

Nov. 23, 1963

In consideration of the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.), I grant LIFE Magazine exclusive world wide print media rights to my original 8 mm color film which shows the shooting of President Kennedy in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. I retain all motion picture rights, but agree not to release the film for motion picture, television, newsreel, etc., use until Friday, Nov. 19, 1963. You agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print.

Abraham Zapruder

Agreed to:

Richard B. Stolley

LIFE Magazine

Witnesses

[Lillian Roger, Erwin Schwartz]

If Stolley walked out of the office with both the camera original film and Zapruder’s remaining Jamieson copy, why would the agreement specify “you agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print”? Moreover, this agreement specifically envisages Zapruder selling the “motion picture, television, newsreel, etc., use” to a third party. To do that, Zapruder would have to retain a copy to show a prospective buyer. No one would be willing to plunk down the kind of money Zapruder would want without first seeing what they were buying. But by this time, Zapruder had given two copies to the Secret Service. He would have to hold onto the copy he retained in order to have something to show a prospective buyer.

Monday afternoon Dan Rather gets to view Zapruder’s remaining copy of the Zapruder film. That same afternoon, Zapruder signs with Stolley a new contract for universal rights to the Zapruder rights. This contract triples the purchase price and is a several-page-long letter from Zapruder to the publisher of LIFE magazine. The letter agreement states:

“You [that is, LIFE’s publisher] acknowledge receipt through your agent of the original and one (1) copy thereof, and it is understood that there are two (2) other copies, one (1) of which is with the Secret Service in Dallas, Texas, and one (1) copy of which is with the Secret Service in Washington, D.C.”

Along with the contract, Zapruder signed a letter affirming the authenticity of the original and certifying that three and only three copies had been made. Zapruder also submitted with his certification affidavits from personnel at the Kodak lab and Jamieson Film Company stating that three and only three copies had been made.

The importance of knowing that the remaining Jamieson copy remained in Zapruder’s custody through the weekend until Monday afternoon is that it underlines the problem any conspirator would face in getting the genie back in the bottle. From Saturday morning on, Stolley and LIFE magazine in Chicago had the camera original of the film. One copy had been flown by the Secret Service to Washington, D.C. Another copy rested in the custody of the Secret Service in Dallas. A final copy resided with Zapruder in Dallas until he turned it over to Stolley on Monday afternoon. This was the copy shown to family members over the weekend and seen by Dan Rather Monday afternoon.

Given this complex web with various copies in various locations and no certainty as to where they would end up, the only plausible action for a conspirator who wanted to alter the film would have been to seize it as evidence. That might have worked. Agents would have appeared at Zapruder’s home on Saturday or Sunday and demanded the remaining copy of the film. Other agents would have appeared at the Donnelly printing plant in Chicago and demanded the camera original. The Zapruder film would have disappeared into the maw of government possession only to reappear if and when the purported conspirators wanted it to appear.. if ever.

Horne posits the possibility of government agents appearing at the Donnelly plant in Chicago in the midst of LIFE preparing its November 29th issue and asking to “borrow” the camera original. As Horne points out, LIFE had dispatched Assistant Managing Editor Roy Rowan, writer John Dilles, Associate Art Director David Stech and layout artist John Geist to set up shop in the Donnelly printing plant in Chicago. In Chicago, numerous black and white prints were made by a Chicago photo lab and some of them selected for publication in the issue then going to press. Under these circumstances, that LIFE magazine would part with the camera original on the basis of a request to borrow it for awhile... it just doesn’t pass the smell test. And the remaining copy in Zapruder’s hands, the copy that he is retaining in hopes of selling it as a film to some network, what about it? Once a network buys it and broadcasts it, the genie has flown.

If a decision had been made to alter the Zapruder film, then the only effective way of doing it would be to seize it. This would have been palatable to the American public at the time and would have given whatever dark forces one imagines control of the situation. The scenario purported by Horne leaves numerous pieces of the puzzle far out of the conspirators control. Seizure was the only way to get the genie back in the bottle. Yet seizure did not occur. What does that tell us?

Josiah Thompson

A poor attempt to convince (whom? not me) that the Zappi Film is authentic...Stolley was just the legman of the main guy in that incident: C.D.Jackson, the master of psychological warfare under Eisenhower, buddy of the Dulles brothers, Clare and Henry Luce, McCloy and last but not least Bedell Smith. Jackson defined in 1951: "...the three big ingredients in psychological warfare are: 1. money, 2.no holds barred and 3. no question asked."

Can you imagine such a guy, Zapruder film in hand, saying: This is an important piece of history. I can't alter it. I can't betray the american public...?

LOL

KK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answers in boldface:

Unfortunately, Tink is choosing to fall prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.

[You mean like: Was the film altered or not? Did I leave out that it was "sort of altered?"]

In addition, he chooses not to ask questions that will elicit a valuable answer. Based on all existing information, including my own experience with an early viewing of a bootleg copy, the question that needs to be asked is, "what really happened with the Zapruder film?" Leaving the question open-ended makes it possible for the mass of seemingly contradictory information to be evaluated objectively.

In fact, since Tink was involved closely with LIFE and its publication of the missing Z-frames for SSID,

[i wasn't "involved closely" with any of this. From a copy, the Editor of LIFE decided to release the "missing frames." He released the frames to me and to other news organizations thus ending a completely useless controversy. That's it.]

not to mention their allowing him to publish sketches of many of the early frames,

[What planet are you living on? I was never given permission to publish sketches. When we did, we were sued by LIFE and I lost all earnings of the book defending our right to publish the sketches. Judge Inzer B. Wyatt ruled in our favor this broadening the fair use doctrine in cases of great public importance. And you didn't know this?]

perhaps he was a witness to what was actually going on and how bootleg copies were made and distributed at the very least to LIFE executives, per the Lancer forum:

"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

[i already replied to this by telling you that this was what I heard in 1966. How could I be a "witness" in 1966 to something that happened in 1963?]

Until Tink is willing to open the door to the possibility of the film being maliciously altered (everyone knows it was altered by splicing in at least two places) it is unlikely that he will produce anything more than additional hand-slapping of those of us who insist that it was.

[Your opinion. But you never reach the point of the post. By November 23rd or 24th, if you want to alter the Zapruder film you are going to have to seize it.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...that LIFE magazine would part with the camera original on the basis of a request to borrow it for awhile... it just doesn’t pass the smell test. And the remaining copy in Zapruder’s hands, the copy that he is retaining in hopes of selling it as a film to some network, what about it? Once a network buys it and broadcasts it, the genie has flown.

...

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Thompson,

question, to the best of your recollection has there ever been an air-check film or dub made of any live broadcast showing the Zapruder film broadcast on ANY carrier service (independent, network affiliate or indeed one of the big three tv networks)? If so, made by whom, what circumstances, the air date and time when(s) and where the telecast originated.... please?

David Healy

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I think we've both discussed, David, the first time the Zapruder film was ever shown on any network was in 1975 on the Geraldo Rivera, program... Groden's copy. At least that's all I know.

My point here is certainly not that any network bought the film on November 23rd and 24th, but rather that from Saturday morning on Zapruder wanted to sell film rights and had a copy at his disposal to accomplish such a sale. No hypothetical conspirator planning to alter the film could know on Saturday or Sunday that Zapruder's copy of the film might end up in the hands of a network by Monday evening. This would be kind of a chilling thought to which an intelligent mastermind would respond, "Okay seize it! Both the LIFE original and the copy still in Zapruder's possession."

Would you agree or disagree? I'm interested in your take on this. I think this is an angle on all this that hasn't been discussed before. If we presume any altering is done by a high-level government conpiracy, why not seize it?

Josiah Thompson

...that LIFE magazine would part with the camera original on the basis of a request to borrow it for awhile... it just doesn’t pass the smell test. And the remaining copy in Zapruder’s hands, the copy that he is retaining in hopes of selling it as a film to some network, what about it? Once a network buys it and broadcasts it, the genie has flown.

...

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Thompson,

question, to the best of your recollection has there ever been an air-check film or dub made of any live broadcast showing the Zapruder film broadcast on ANY carrier service (independent, network affiliate or indeed one of the big three tv networks)? If so, made by whom, what circumstances, the air date and time when(s) and where the telecast originated.... please?

David Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answers in boldface:
Unfortunately, Tink is choosing to fall prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.

[You mean like: Was the film altered or not? Did I leave out that it was "sort of altered?"]

Everyone knows at least the *original* was altered. It was spliced in at least two places. An objective question might be to ask how the was altered, where it may have been altered, and how maliciously or benignly it was altered.

In addition, he chooses not to ask questions that will elicit a valuable answer. Based on all existing information, including my own experience with an early viewing of a bootleg copy, the question that needs to be asked is, "what really happened with the Zapruder film?" Leaving the question open-ended makes it possible for the mass of seemingly contradictory information to be evaluated objectively.

In fact, since Tink was involved closely with LIFE and its publication of the missing Z-frames for SSID,

[i wasn't "involved closely" with any of this. From a copy, the Editor of LIFE decided to release the "missing frames." He released the frames to me and to other news organizations thus ending a completely useless controversy. That's it.]

not to mention their allowing him to publish sketches of many of the early frames,

[What planet are you living on? I was never given permission to publish sketches. When we did, we were sued by LIFE and I lost all earnings of the book defending our right to publish the sketches. Judge Inzer B. Wyatt ruled in our favor this broadening the fair use doctrine in cases of great public importance. And you didn't know this?]

Actually, in reading all of your unabashed apologizing for the sanctity and purity of the Zapruder film, that slipped my mind. I apologize for that. But how do we know (not that you were necessarily involved) that LIFE's supposed outrage and taking you to court was not calculated to suit one of their agendas regarding the film?

perhaps he was a witness to what was actually going on and how bootleg copies were made and distributed at the very least to LIFE executives, per the Lancer forum:

"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

[i already replied to this by telling you that this was what I heard in 1966. How could I be a "witness" in 1966 to something that happened in 1963?]

Are you saying you were not in NYC in 1964? That you had no association with people at LIFE in 1964? That the genesis for your book and involvement with LIFE which was suppressing the Zapruder film all happened in 1966 so that your book could magically be published in '67? Excuse me, but does that really pass the 'smell test'?

Until Tink is willing to open the door to the possibility of the film being maliciously altered (everyone knows it was altered by splicing in at least two places) it is unlikely that he will produce anything more than additional hand-slapping of those of us who insist that it was.

[Your opinion. But you never reach the point of the post. By November 23rd or 24th, if you want to alter the Zapruder film you are going to have to seize it.]

I disagree. There is no *it*. There were an original and three copies, and bootleg copies. What if not all were altered in the same way? What if the alterations did not occur all at once, but over time? How would viewers know which copy of the Z-film they were seeing? If there were differences between them, who would know?

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

As I think we've both discussed, David, the first time the Zapruder film was ever shown on any network was in 1975 on the Geraldo Rivera, program... Groden's copy. At least that's all I know.

My point here is certainly not that any network bought the film on November 23rd and 24th, but rather that from Saturday morning on Zapruder wanted to sell film rights and had a copy at his disposal to accomplish such a sale. No hypothetical conspirator planning to alter the film could know on Saturday or Sunday that Zapruder's copy of the film might end up in the hands of a network by Monday evening. This would be kind of a chilling thought to which an intelligent mastermind would respond, "Okay seize it! Both the LIFE original and the copy still in Zapruder's possession."

Would you agree or disagree? I'm interested in your take on this. I think this is an angle on all this that hasn't been discussed before. If we presume any altering is done by a high-level government conpiracy, why not seize it?

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Thompson,

Why seize it? Why indeed, especially if "friends or sympathizers" have control over the camera original and the 3 optical film prints... btw, who said it was a government conspiracy? Cover-up? Now that is another story... I'll have more to follow later...

DHealy

...that LIFE magazine would part with the camera original on the basis of a request to borrow it for awhile... it just doesn’t pass the smell test. And the remaining copy in Zapruder’s hands, the copy that he is retaining in hopes of selling it as a film to some network, what about it? Once a network buys it and broadcasts it, the genie has flown.

...

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Thompson,

question, to the best of your recollection has there ever been an air-check film or dub made of any live broadcast showing the Zapruder film broadcast on ANY carrier service (independent, network affiliate or indeed one of the big three tv networks)? If so, made by whom, what circumstances, the air date and time when(s) and where the telecast originated.... please?

David Healy

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just not understanding you and you have a valid point. So let me try again. You write:

"Once again, the fallacy of false alternatives. What if there was not *the* Z-film to posit? What if there were an original and three copies, any of which could have been altered? What if the alterations did not occur all at once, but over time? How would viewers know which copy of the Z-film they were seeing? If there were differences between them, who would know?"

One way of knowing the film has been altered is finding out that various copies don't match. Let's say NBC buys the copy Zapruder retained and turned over to them on Monday night. When NBC shows that copy, it will become apparent that frames from that copy do not match, say, the frames printed in LIFE magazine that Horne presumes have been altered. Or try the reverse of what I've just supposed. Since there is a transmission tape of what got shown on NBC and since LIFE was printed in millions of copies the two could be compared at any time. And instead of pointing to phantom "other films" seen purportedly by Rich Dellarosa, Professor Fetzer could point to a real, existing difference in copies of the film.

Am I on the right track or am I missing your meaning?

Josiah Thompson

My answers in boldface:
Unfortunately, Tink is choosing to fall prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.

[You mean like: Was the film altered or not? Did I leave out that it was "sort of altered?"]

In addition, he chooses not to ask questions that will elicit a valuable answer. Based on all existing information, including my own experience with an early viewing of a bootleg copy, the question that needs to be asked is, "what really happened with the Zapruder film?" Leaving the question open-ended makes it possible for the mass of seemingly contradictory information to be evaluated objectively.

In fact, since Tink was involved closely with LIFE and its publication of the missing Z-frames for SSID,

[i wasn't "involved closely" with any of this. From a copy, the Editor of LIFE decided to release the "missing frames." He released the frames to me and to other news organizations thus ending a completely useless controversy. That's it.]

not to mention their allowing him to publish sketches of many of the early frames,

[What planet are you living on? I was never given permission to publish sketches. When we did, we were sued by LIFE and I lost all earnings of the book defending our right to publish the sketches. Judge Inzer B. Wyatt ruled in our favor this broadening the fair use doctrine in cases of great public importance. And you didn't know this?]

perhaps he was a witness to what was actually going on and how bootleg copies were made and distributed at the very least to LIFE executives, per the Lancer forum:

"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

[i already replied to this by telling you that this was what I heard in 1966. How could I be a "witness" in 1966 to something that happened in 1963?]

Are you saying you were not in NYC in 1964? That you had no association with people at LIFE in 1964? That the genesis for your book and involvement with LIFE which was suppressing the Zapruder film all happened in 1966 so that your book could magically be published in '67? Excuse me, but that doesn't really pass the 'smell test'.

Until Tink is willing to open the door to the possibility of the film being maliciously altered (everyone knows it was altered by splicing in at least two places) it is unlikely that he will produce anything more than additional hand-slapping of those of us who insist that it was.

[Your opinion. But you never reach the point of the post. By November 23rd or 24th, if you want to alter the Zapruder film you are going to have to seize it.]

Once again, the fallacy of false alternatives. What if there was not *the* Z-film to posit? What if there were an original and three copies, any of which could have been altered? What if the alterations did not occur all at once, but over time? How would viewers know which copy of the Z-film they were seeing? If there were differences between them, who would know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I think we've both discussed, David, the first time the Zapruder film was ever shown on any network was in 1975 on the Geraldo Rivera, program... Groden's copy. At least that's all I know.

My point here is certainly not that any network bought the film on November 23rd and 24th, but rather that from Saturday morning on Zapruder wanted to sell film rights and had a copy at his disposal to accomplish such a sale. No hypothetical conspirator planning to alter the film could know on Saturday or Sunday that Zapruder's copy of the film might end up in the hands of a network by Monday evening. This would be kind of a chilling thought to which an intelligent mastermind would respond, "Okay seize it! Both the LIFE original and the copy still in Zapruder's possession."

Would you agree or disagree? I'm interested in your take on this. I think this is an angle on all this that hasn't been discussed before. If we presume any altering is done by a high-level government conpiracy, why not seize it?

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Thompson,

Why seize it? Why indeed, especially if "friends or sympathizers" have control over the camera original and the 3 optical film prints... btw, who said it was a government conspiracy? Cover-up? Now that is another story... I'll have more to follow later...

DHealy

...that LIFE magazine would part with the camera original on the basis of a request to borrow it for awhile... it just doesn’t pass the smell test. And the remaining copy in Zapruder’s hands, the copy that he is retaining in hopes of selling it as a film to some network, what about it? Once a network buys it and broadcasts it, the genie has flown.

...

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Thompson,

question, to the best of your recollection has there ever been an air-check film or dub made of any live broadcast showing the Zapruder film broadcast on ANY carrier service (independent, network affiliate or indeed one of the big three tv networks)? If so, made by whom, what circumstances, the air date and time when(s) and where the telecast originated.... please?

David Healy

Yes, in the days following the assassination, did the original and the three copies ever come together again?

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a decision had been made to alter the Zapruder film, then the only effective way of doing it would be to seize it. .... Yet seizure did not occur. What does that tell us?

THe dark forces behind the assassination didn't plan for everything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a decision had been made to alter the Zapruder film, then the only effective way of doing it would be to seize it. .... Yet seizure did not occur. What does that tell us?

THe dark forces behind the assassination didn't plan for everything?

In my opinion, Zapruder did not take the "Zapruder film". An "official film" of the assassination

was part of the plotters' scenario. The "official photographer" was on the pedestal. Zapruder was

just a "front man" to take credit for it. The reason for an OFFICIAL FILM is that it could

be used to counteract any testimony or photos to the contrary. There is ample evidence

that Zapruder was not on the pedestal, and that other films were confiscated and altered to

conform with the "official film."

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating Jack. Could you tell us more about it? Any idea of who the "official photographer" was or what organization he worked for? Any idea what he looked like or how tall he was? Was it he and not Zapruder who took the "official film" to the Kodak lab in Dallas and got it developed?

Josiah Thompson

If a decision had been made to alter the Zapruder film, then the only effective way of doing it would be to seize it. .... Yet seizure did not occur. What does that tell us?

THe dark forces behind the assassination didn't plan for everything?

In my opinion, Zapruder did not take the "Zapruder film". An "official film" of the assassination

was part of the plotters' scenario. The "official photographer" was on the pedestal. Zapruder was

just a "front man" to take credit for it. The reason for an OFFICIAL FILM is that it could

be used to counteract any testimony or photos to the contrary. There is ample evidence

that Zapruder was not on the pedestal, and that other films were confiscated and altered to

conform with the "official film."

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I think we've both discussed, David, the first time the Zapruder film was ever shown on any network was in 1975 on the Geraldo Rivera, program... Groden's copy. At least that's all I know.

My point here is certainly not that any network bought the film on November 23rd and 24th, but rather that from Saturday morning on Zapruder wanted to sell film rights and had a copy at his disposal to accomplish such a sale. No hypothetical conspirator planning to alter the film could know on Saturday or Sunday that Zapruder's copy of the film might end up in the hands of a network by Monday evening. This would be kind of a chilling thought to which an intelligent mastermind would respond, "Okay seize it! Both the LIFE original and the copy still in Zapruder's possession."

Would you agree or disagree? I'm interested in your take on this. I think this is an angle on all this that hasn't been discussed before. If we presume any altering is done by a high-level government conpiracy, why not seize it?

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Thompson,

Why seize it? Why indeed, especially if "friends or sympathizers" have control over the camera original and the 3 optical film prints... btw, who said it was a government conspiracy? Cover-up? Now that is another story... I'll have more to follow later...

DHealy

...that LIFE magazine would part with the camera original on the basis of a request to borrow it for awhile... it just doesn’t pass the smell test. And the remaining copy in Zapruder’s hands, the copy that he is retaining in hopes of selling it as a film to some network, what about it? Once a network buys it and broadcasts it, the genie has flown.

...

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Thompson,

question, to the best of your recollection has there ever been an air-check film or dub made of any live broadcast showing the Zapruder film broadcast on ANY carrier service (independent, network affiliate or indeed one of the big three tv networks)? If so, made by whom, what circumstances, the air date and time when(s) and where the telecast originated.... please?

David Healy

Yes, in the days following the assassination, did the original and the three copies ever come together again?

BK

Bill David All I have wondered what exactly Lilian Zapruder meant when she stated to David Lifton..that Abraham had given them the film...he has her on tape..from Pig On A Leash thanks b..

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...