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

[Dean Hagerman]

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

Tink

This is my answer not Jacks (even though I use his study)

The person who took the offical film was the other camera man that we see in Betzner

He was tall enough to film over the pyracantha bush

I believe that TOCM took the offical film that Rich Dellarosa viewed and that Zappy or the camera in Zappys position took a sweeping shot right before the assassination to get the proper background and bystanders (one of the reasons some of the bystanders seem to have little movement and not be looking at JFK ) that was used together with the film taken by TOCM to create the fake Z-film that is what we watch today

[Jack White]

Dean,

I have a question, and mind you, I am not good with film study, so bear with me.

If the gentleman you say is actually taking the film, (not sure how to word this), wouldn't the perspective be off?

Zapruder actually faces the side of the limo directly , and we can see that shortly after the sign, but his facing the side would be different that the gentleman facing the side, time wise. The gentleman couldn't face the side until later.

That would throw the orientation of the film off, wouldn't it? And we'd be able to tell that it was shot from a different place, wouldn't we?

I hope you understand what I mean. (This is not my forte.)

Kathy

Read more carefully. It said that IF this is a photographer, he MAY have taken THE OTHER FILM.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

Dean,

I have a question, and mind you, I am not good with film study, so bear with me.

If the gentleman you say is actually taking the film, (not sure how to word this), wouldn't the perspective be off?

Zapruder actually faces the side of the limo directly , and we can see that shortly after the sign, but his facing the side would be different that the gentleman facing the side, time wise. The gentleman couldn't face the side until later.

That would throw the orientation of the film off, wouldn't it? And we'd be able to tell that it was shot from a different place, wouldn't we?

I hope you understand what I mean. (This is not my forte.)

Kathy

Kathy Zappy and TOCM are pretty close to each other and there cameras are pointing in the same direction

I believe (again my opinion, IF its a camera and IF TOCM took the "other" film) like I said both of the films were put together to create the fake Z-film

I think they were close enough to each other that when the films were put together it would be to hard to tell

And one thing that Rich said is that the "other film" was taken from a position real close to the Z-film he could tell it was from a different position

But remember that Rich saw the uncut version of the other film not the one that I believe was made from two different films, Zappys camera position (It might not have been Zappy as Jack says) supplying the background and the other film supplying the limo and the people inside the limo

Then the people inside the limo, the head shot and wounds and all the other things were altered to fit the offical version

I hope this helps Kathy, I know you dont believe in alteration but now is the time to study it in detail with Dougs books backing up TGZFH

Dean

[Craig Lamson]

Dean,

I have a question, and mind you, I am not good with film study, so bear with me.

If the gentleman you say is actually taking the film, (not sure how to word this), wouldn't the perspective be off?

Zapruder actually faces the side of the limo directly , and we can see that shortly after the sign, but his facing the side would be different that the gentleman facing the side, time wise. The gentleman couldn't face the side until later.

That would throw the orientation of the film off, wouldn't it? And we'd be able to tell that it was shot from a different place, wouldn't we?

I hope you understand what I mean. (This is not my forte.)

Kathy

Read more carefully. It said that IF this is a photographer, he MAY have taken THE OTHER FILM.

Jack

Wow, I just don't find that anywhere in Deans statement:

"Tink

This is my answer not Jacks (even though I use his study)

The person who took the offical film was the other camera man that we see in Betzner

He was tall enough to film over the pyracantha bush

I believe that TOCM took the offical film that Rich Dellarosa viewed and that Zappy or the camera in Zappys position took a sweeping shot right before the assassination to get the proper background and bystanders (one of the reasons some of the bystanders seem to have little movement and not be looking at JFK ) that was used together with the film taken by TOCM to create the fake Z-film that is what we watch today"

Funny Kathy asked DEAN a direct question in response to his statement quoted above.

You suggesat she read more carefully and point her to the words IF and MAY.

Can you please point out the words IF and MAY for all of us in Deans statement as quoted above?

Or is it just a case where you simply need to read more carefully?

And then that brings us back top the problems of perspective and parallax....

[Craig Lamson]

Dean,

I have a question, and mind you, I am not good with film study, so bear with me.

If the gentleman you say is actually taking the film, (not sure how to word this), wouldn't the perspective be off?

Zapruder actually faces the side of the limo directly , and we can see that shortly after the sign, but his facing the side would be different that the gentleman facing the side, time wise. The gentleman couldn't face the side until later.

That would throw the orientation of the film off, wouldn't it? And we'd be able to tell that it was shot from a different place, wouldn't we?

I hope you understand what I mean. (This is not my forte.)

Kathy

Kathy Zappy and TOCM are pretty close to each other and there cameras are pointing in the same direction

I believe (again my opinion, IF its a camera and IF TOCM took the "other" film) like I said both of the films were put together to create the fake Z-film

I think they were close enough to each other that when the films were put together it would be to hard to tell

And one thing that Rich said is that the "other film" was taken from a position real close to the Z-film he could tell it was from a different position

But remember that Rich saw the uncut version of the other film not the one that I believe was made from two different films, Zappys camera position (It might not have been Zappy as Jack says) supplying the background and the other film supplying the limo and the people inside the limo

Then the people inside the limo, the head shot and wounds and all the other things were altered to fit the offical version

I hope this helps Kathy, I know you dont believe in alteration but now is the time to study it in detail with Dougs books backing up TGZFH

Dean

I'm just curious Dean, have you ever tried to take two photos from different camera location like the ones you suggest here and tried to combine the images? What method could have been used (prior to digtial) to attempt the correct the mismatch in viewpoints?

And finally, even with todays powerful graphics computers and software, can you offer us any examples that show the process as you suggest it happened?

[John Dugan]

so does the Zapruder family have the original copy? or does he have a 1st gen copy? or does nobody know for sure?

Thanks for the info Josiah.

[William Kelly]

so does the Zapruder family have the original copy? or does he have a 1st gen copy? or does nobody know for sure?

Thanks for the info Josiah.

The Original Z-Film is owned by the American public and is lodged at the National Archives & Records Adminisration JFK Assassination Records Collection at Archives II in Maryland, having been purchased for multi-millions of dollars, though the copyright didn't come with it, and that has been delegated to the Sixth Floor museum in Dallas.

BK

[Pamela Brown]

Josiah said:

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?

Pamela said:

The questions I am suggesting are intended to allow one to keep an open mind to the possibility that we do not yet know what happened. Is it impossible that alterations to the original, for example, were made over time? Is it impossible that copes were altered differently at different times? It just seems that closing doors that want to stay open inhibits research rather than furthering it.

The 'script' for the Zapruder seems to be that there were only X # of copies made and they have all been kept track of etc etc, for example, when the reality is that nobody knows for sure, and anyone who had a 1st gen copy or the original could have made other copies.

As you said in SSID, the FBI copy was not one of the 1st gen copies, but a copy of the 1st gen SS copy. You also said the slides given to NARA in 35mm were inferior to the 4X5's you viewed at LIFE. How do we know for sure what was going on? Also, is this not clear evidence that somebody was sandbagging research at NARA by giving the govt less than the best LIFE had? Muddiness and lack of clarity can be forms of alteration if details are removed by repeated copying, don't you think?

In addition, in the early days, the film was suppressed. People who saw it could only comment on it; there was no way to compare different versions of it, even if they did exist. Thus, Rather, for example, could claim the film showed forward movement at the fatal headshot when that was untrue. Who could differ with him back then?

On the other hand, there was an underground of the Zapruder where even very good bootleg copies were being made and screened. Did they all stay pristine? How do we know when there was no control over them?

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?

Edited January 6, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Will Emaus]

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.

I think the overall point is very well taken, but Life specifying that they will return the original and then be given a copy doesn't seem out of line, to me anyways.

That comes across more along the lines that they will either keep the copy they've already got or be made a new one after the original is returned. I mean they're paying him $50,000 for exclusivity for that first week, keeping the 4th copy to make sure of their investment makes a lot of sense. You would think that if Zapruder just got handed $50,000, he could wait until the week was up before starting to negotiate film rights with someone else.

Beyond that though, it would seem like a key in any possible alteration scenario is Oswald being silenced. You can do whatever Prep work before Sunday morning whether it's used or not, but it seems likely that you wouldn't make the decision to actually implement an altered film until after Oswald died...maybe a backup scenario was still necessary at that point had he lived and if so maybe the film would need to stay as is or be altered in a different way?

I have a question too. Do you know if Life did their own frame selection for the November 29th issue? It seems possible that the early hours with the Zapruder film were mainly for analysis and that the direction on the CIA #450 document might have been directed towards not only the making of briefing boards, but to tell Life which frames were "safe" to print (not to be altered or lacking controversy). From what's been described, there seems to be about the same number of frames used for both the briefing boards and the initial Life issue.

It would seem the most realistic way in the first 24 hours to control the content initially wouldn't be just to rush to alter the film (although you could certainly work on it in the background) but to review the film first and then tell Life which frames they can't print. If a potential conspirator reviews the film and simply knows which frames need to be changed, and then tells Life not to print them, then they've bought the rest of the weekend to make alterations.

Using the entire weekend to accomplish this, given the different films and photos out there and the fact that some were sold on the 25th, is the only way alteration could be even remotely possible imho...

[Jack White]

I repeat: The "Zapruder film" had to BE GOOD ENOUGH

TO FOOL EVERYONE that needed to be fooled for as long as

they needed to be fooled. Indeed, there are still skilled

researchers who ardently believe the film is genuine and

they rely on it for many aspects of what happened.

I repeat: Abe Zapruder did not take the "Zapruder film."

Abe was not on the pedestal. He was just a deliveryman

who took credit for a film done by the conspirators to be

the OFFICIAL RECORD of the assassination which fit the

OFFICIAL STORY. It was altered, fabricated, faked in

whatever way necessary to tell the OFFICIAL STORY,

just as many other photos were altered, fabricated and

faked.

I repeat: The "Zapruder film" was a preemptive strike,

a part of the clever scenario needed to PROVE the

official story was true. The conspirators COULD NOT

LEAVE TO CHANCE THAT SOME AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER

MIGHT TAKE PHOTOS WHICH WOULD CONFLICT WITH A

SIXTH FLOOR PATSY!

I repeat: In their "perfect lone nut scenario" why would

the planners of the OFFICIAL STORY not include an

OFFICIAL FILM to prove the official scenario. They

certainly would not leave this to chance. They CONTROLLED

it. Abe was an actor, playing a role.

Jack

PS...Note that Abe in the photo even pantomimed the OFFICIAL

STORY OF A BLOWOUT TO THE RIGHT TEMPLE, instead of

the blowout to the occipital.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

I repeat: The "Zapruder film" had to BE GOOD ENOUGH

TO FOOL EVERYONE that needed to be fooled for as long as

they needed to be fooled. Indeed, there are still skilled

researchers who ardently believe the film is genuine and

they rely on it for many aspects of what happened.

I repeat: Abe Zapruder did not take the "Zapruder film."

Abe was not on the pedestal. He was just a deliveryman

who took credit for a film done by the conspirators to be

the OFFICIAL RECORD of the assassination which fit the

OFFICIAL STORY. It was altered, fabricated, faked in

whatever way necessary to tell the OFFICIAL STORY,

just as many other photos were altered, fabricated and

faked.

I repeat: The "Zapruder film" was a preemptive strike,

a part of the clever scenario needed to PROVE the

official story was true. The conspirators COULD NOT

LEAVE TO CHANCE THAT SOME AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER

MIGHT TAKE PHOTOS WHICH WOULD CONFLICT WITH A

SIXTH FLOOR PATSY!

I repeat: In their "perfect lone nut scenario" why would

the planners of the OFFICIAL STORY not include an

OFFICIAL FILM to prove the official scenario. They

certainly would not leave this to chance. They CONTROLLED

it. Abe was an actor, playing a role.

Jack

So what was Sitzman's role? supporting actor?

Duncan

Supporting actress. Remember, PEGGY BURNEY of Abe's company

also claimed to be the one on the pedestal helping Abe, but they

finally settled on Sitzman.

[Dean Hagerman]

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

Tink

This is my answer not Jacks (even though I use his study)

The person who took the offical film was the other camera man that we see in Betzner

He was tall enough to film over the pyracantha bush

I believe that TOCM took the offical film that Rich Dellarosa viewed and that Zappy or the camera in Zappys position took a sweeping shot right before the assassination to get the proper background and bystanders (one of the reasons some of the bystanders seem to have little movement and not be looking at JFK ) that was used together with the film taken by TOCM to create the fake Z-film that is what we watch today

The answer to this analysis, and Dean's belief in that analysis can be found here.

What stunning research Duncan, keep up the good work

[Josiah Thompson]

Zapruder retained the best of the three first generation copies made by Jamieson. He held it from Saturday morning until late Monday afternoon or early evening when he turned it over to Stolley in accordance with the second contract. LIFE gave it back to the Zapruder family who gave it to the 6th Floor Museum.

Josiah Thompson

quote name='John Dugan' date='Jan 6 2010, 06:47 PM' post='177799']

so does the Zapruder family have the original copy? or does he have a 1st gen copy? or does nobody know for sure?

Thanks for the info Josiah.

[Jack White]

Read HORNE IV for the true information.

Jack

[William Kelly]

Richard Stolley is apparently still alive, living and writing in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

JFK assassination: The man behind the film

Abraham Zapruder's home move has generated countless conspiracy theories. But who was he?

Richard B. Stolley | For The New Mexican

Posted: Saturday, November 22, 2008 - 11/23/08

Richard B. Stolley

http://www.santafe.com/articles/author/richard-b-stolley/

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local News/23-Zapruder

Forty-five years ago Saturday, he took what is probably the most famous home movie in history . Almost anyone who was alive on Nov. 22, 1963, remembers exactly where he or she was when first hearing about the event his film captured in such grisly detail.

Yet today Abraham Zapruder has returned to the obscurity from which he was catapulted with six seconds of 8 mm film documenting from start to bloody finish the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

On the anniversary of that tragedy, the ferocious debate over who shot the president and why shows few signs of abating. So it is interesting to consider the Dallas businessman, then 58, who in many ways is responsible for igniting the controversy over the possibility of a plot to murder the president. Without the Zapruder film, the conspiracy theorists would have precious little to work with.

He was born in Russia, educated at a Hebrew school and came to New York with his mother and sister when he was a teenager. His father had preceded them. A brother started the trip but, as Zapruder described it much later, was pulled off the train and killed by anti-Jewish thugs. Zapruder says he was spared himself because he had blond hair.

He landed a job in the garment district as a pattern cutter, worked up to head of crew and was lured to Dallas in 1941 as production chief of a dress factory there. With a partner, he ultimately started his own line, Jennifer Juniors, the name borrowed from the movie star, Jennifer Jones.

It was a thriving business, $2 million gross, and Mr. Z, as everyone called him, was a stern but popular boss. On most work days, he and Erwin Schwartz, the son of his original partner, wandered over to Sanger's Department Store in the afternoon for a banana split or ice cream soda. Mr. Z rarely got mad, but when he did — at Erwin or a worker or a salesman — he would walk across the street and sit on a park bench until he cooled down.

Zapruder was perhaps 5 feet, 9 inches, a trifle plump, bespectacled, balding and a fastidious dresser who favored white shirts and bow ties. A sociable man, he loved telling stories, sometimes in a Jewish dialect that would be considered politically incorrect today — tales about Russia, New York, business, whatever, while he puffed on a cigar (and drank sparingly). Schwartz suspected that his partner may have made up some of the stories, "but I enjoyed them and I believed them."

Late in life, Zapruder took up golf, and he and Schwartz waged putting contests on the office rug. At stake was a $1 bet. Zapruder played the piano fairly well, mostly light classics, and sang, as his lawyer Sam Passman recalled, "badly." He and his wife, Lillian, had a son and a daughter, and Zapruder loved to shoot home movies of them and later on, of his grandchildren, his friends, his employees. He was a real 8 mm buff.

It was natural, then, for him to take his camera to nearby Dealy Plaza that November morning for a memento of the president he had voted for, and greatly admired as someone who "had gotten the country on the right track."

That day changed him forever, his friends say. "Just remember that we've only seen the film," one of them pointed out. "He saw the actual murder." For a while Zapruder had nightmares, jerking awake when his sleeping eye came upon frame 313, the tiny speck of film that records the horrifying head wound. He wept while testifying before the Warren Commission that investigated the assassination. "I'm sorry," he told the commission. "I'm ashamed of myself really, but I couldn't help it." His wife, Lillian, acknowledged, "He was extremely emotional about the whole thing."

He became an unwilling celebrity. As many as 10 sacks of mail arrived daily, addressed simply to "Abraham Zapruder, Dallas, Texas." Some letters called him a fool for contributing $25,000 to the family of the Dallas police officer killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. That amount was the first of six annual payments from LIFE Magazine, which had bought the film the day after the assassination (and in 1975 returned it to the Zapruder family for $1). When he and his wife traveled, the Zapruder name was sometimes recognized on hotel registers. He hated the notoriety.

He had little use for the army of conspiracy theorists the assassination spawned. After agreeing to see an early conspiracy author, Mark Lane, who wrote Rush to Judgment, one of the first anti-Warren Report books, Zapruder got so upset over Lane's questions that he asked the writer to leave his office. Until Zapruder's death from cancer in 1970, he believed, as did the Warren Report, that Kennedy was murdered by "a crackpot, a nut" — in short by Oswald acting alone.

Although a shrewd businessman, he recoiled from being seen as profiting from the president's death. He asked LIFE to keep the amount it paid him confidential. In 1999, his name was splashed on front pages again when the federal government agreed to pay his family $16 million for possession of the fragile piece of film. It is fair to speculate on how Zapruder himself might have reacted to such a payoff.

In return for a new camera, Zapruder gave his historic camera to Bell & Howell, which donated it to the National Archives. But he rarely used the new one in the final years of his life. Mr. Z's enthusiasm for home movies ended on Nov. 22, 1963.

Richard B. Stolley, senior editorial adviser at Time Inc., was the LIFE reporter who obtained the Zapruder film for his magazine in 1963, 45 years ago today. He now lives in Santa Fe with his wife, Lise Hilboldt, and son.

Stolley was appointed to the job on February 1, 1993, upon his retirement as Editorial Director, the second highest editorial management position in the company. From June 1995 to March 1996, he also held a dual job as Executive Producer of Extra, a Time Warner daily syndicated television show.

He was the editor of three photographic histories: the best-selling LIFE: Our Century in Pictures, in October 1999, a companion volume, LIFE: Century of Change, America in Pictures in 1900-2000, in October 2000, and the best-selling LIFE: World War 2, in October 2001, all published by Little, Brown. In 2002, Stolley wrote the text for Sinatra: An Intimate Portrait of a Very Good Year, published by Stewart, Tabori and Chang.

Stolley has been a reporter, writer, bureau chief, senior editor and managing editor at Time Inc. since 1953. He worked for 19 years on the weekly Life magazine and rose to assistant managing editor. During his career there, he served as chief of four bureaus in the U.S. and Europe. Most memorable among the stories he covered was the death of President John F. Kennedy during which Stolley discovered and obtained for Life the famous Zapruder film of the assassination.

Stolley was the editor in charge of the final issue, "The Year in Pictures 1972," after Life announced it was suspending publication in December of that year.

In 1973 Stolley became the founding managing editor of People, joining the magazine in its planning stages, and remained in that position for eight years. People began publication in March 1974 with a circulation of one million and became profitable after an unprecedented 18 months. Described as the most successful magazine in publishing history, People now has a weekly circulation of 3,600,000.

In 1982 Stolley moved over to the managing editorship of the monthly Life. During the next three years, Life won two National Magazine Awards, the first in 1983 for general excellence among magazines with a circulation of more than one million and the second in 1985 for photography.

In 1987-88 Stolley's assignment was director of special projects with responsibility for coordinating creative ideas among the magazine, books and video divisions of Time Inc. He became Editorial Director on January 1, 1989.

In 1996, Stolley was named to the American Society of Magazine Editors newly inaugurated Hall of Fame, which cited his founding of People with these words: "In pioneering personality-driven journalism, he left an indelible mark on the entire magazine industry by creating a form and format that just about every other magazine editor has drawn from and adapted."

In 1997, Stolley received the Henry Johnson Fisher Award for Lifetime Achievement in magazines, the most prestigious award the industry bestows, from the Magazine Publishers of America. Later that same year, he was among the first group of Northwestern University-educated journalists named by the Medill School of Journalism to its new Hall of Achievement.

Stolley has written articles for People, Life, Real Simple, Sports Illustrated, Fortune, Money, Entertainment Weekly, Esquire, New York, Columbia, Vanity Fair and The New York Times. He was the editor of the book PEOPLE Celebrates People: The Best of 20 Unforgettable Years, published in 1994, and again in 1996 in a revised edition. He also wrote the introductions to A Hollywood Farewell: The Death and Funeral of Marilyn Monroe, by Leigh A. Wiener, published in 1990, and to LIFE: Man in Space: An Illustrated History from Sputnik to Columbia, published in 2003, and the foreword to LIFE: Platinum Anniversary Collection, 70 Years of Extraordinary Photography..

He was born October 3, 1928 in Pekin, Illinois, and while in high school, he worked for two years as sports editor of the Pekin Daily Times. He served two years in the Navy after World War II aboard the light cruiser U.S.S. Dayton. In 1952 he received a bachelor's degree from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, and one year later, a master's degree. During two summers while in college, he reported and wrote for the Peekskill, NY, Evening Star. After graduation, he worked briefly for the Chicago Sun-Times, then became a reporter for Life.

Stolley is past president of the Overseas Press Club and of the American Society of Magazine Editors, a member of the boards of the National Parkinson Foundation in Miami, FL, and the Lensic Performing Arts Center in Santa Fe, NM. In 2004, he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by Hartwick College in Oneonta, NY, in 1975 an honorary Doctor of Laws by Villa Maria College in Erie, PA, and in 1994 the Alumni Medal from Northwestern University.

http://oascentral.santafenewmexican.com/Re...86873414151636c?

Edited March 8, 2010 by William Kelly