Does the limo slow down?

[Paul Rigby]

There is no way Zapruder was shown to the public that weekend.

I agree. In fact, it was shown on WNEW-TV on the morning of Tuesday, 26 November. Even worse, I have a moderately well-known assassination researcher who wrote so at the time (a Mr Mark Lane); a journalist who wrote that UPI Newsfilms had distributed it to subscribing stations (in this instance, in Milwaukee); and two other written recollections of the film being broadcast on television during that time frame. I wouldn't mind, but I got this far entirely unassisted by a generous Foundation grant.

The question is, who to believe: David and the contemporary orthodoxy, which once held the film had never been near the CIA in the days following the assassination, or the contemporaneous witnesses?

It's a tough one, I concede, but who said history was easy? Except in this case, of course.

[Robert Harris]

There is no way Zapruder was shown to the public that weekend.

I agree. In fact, it was shown on WNEW-TV on the morning of Tuesday, 26 November. Even worse, I have a moderately well-known assassination researcher who wrote so at the time (a Mr Mark Lane); a journalist who wrote that UPI Newsfilms had distributed it to subscribing stations (in this instance, in Milwaukee); and two other written recollections of the film being broadcast on television during that time frame. I wouldn't mind, but I got this far entirely unassisted by a generous Foundation grant.

The question is, who to believe: David and the contemporary orthodoxy, which once held the film had never been near the CIA in the days following the assassination, or the contemporaneous witnesses?

It's a tough one, I concede, but who said history was easy? Except in this case, of course.

Paul, would you mind posting verifiable citations and sources for Lane's statement(s) and the journalist who wrote that the Zapruder film was distributed by UPI?

[Robert Harris]

Read the witness statements from those who were there.

The Zapruder Film means nothing. ( except they didn't take out the headshot from the front , for some reason)

Back in the pre-SBT days, there is only ONE reason the perps would have wanted to coverup the content of these films, and that was to hide the existence of a shooter or shooters from the front.

And if you think about most of the arguments for this theory, you will quickly realize that this was not really about "alteration". Most of the allegations would have required a complete fabrication, replete with actors and extras.

Therefore, the perps must have created a film in which they themselves, inserted the infamous "back and to the left" motion.

Do you really think that's what happened?

Robert Harris

Edited August 8, 2010 by Robert Harris

[John Dolva]

One anomaly in the volumes of exhibits (which MUST have been proof read is the not one but two, the two that show the headshot most dramatically have in both instances two frames at the headsot wrongly placed chronologically. It's like someone was trying to draw attention to something while arguably credibly attribute it to a mistake by someone. (imo fortunately mint editions of the 1964 published hardcover presidential commission volumes are distributed today throughout the world.)

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, would you mind posting verifiable citations and sources for Lane's statement(s) and the journalist who wrote that the Zapruder film was distributed by UPI?

“Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald,” published by the National Guardian, 19 December 1963:

”A motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat, was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show show exactly the same situation.”

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/Lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html

How could Lane write, in an article published in the 19 December 1963 edition of the National Guardian, of having viewed the Zapruder film on television, when, according to the Department of Zapruderland Security and fellow-travellers, the film wasn’t shown on television until 1975? (1).

Well, if the hypothesis advanced in the thread Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on 26 November 1963? – to wit, that the first version of the Z film debuted on that station at 12:46 a.m. on the morning of Tuesday, 26 November 1963 - is correct, we have an explanation.

So where was Lane 25-26 November 1963? According to the forward to A Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane replies (NY: Fawcett Crest, April 1969), in New York. From the same source, we learn that he commenced work on his defence brief for Oswald on Tuesday, 26 November:

“…Henry Wade, the Dallas prosecutor, called a press conference soon after Oswald’s death was announced…When the New York Times published the text of the press conference two days later (2), I was able to study the allegations more leisurely…I sat down to analyze the charges…When I was finished, I had written a ten-thousand word article…,” p.16

Lane’s recollection of the showing of the Z film fulfils the classic criteria for preferment as an historical source: it was spontaneous; contemporaneous; and, seemingly, disinterested. It also had recent and related precedent.

Just as in the case of Dan Rather and his rather more detailed descriptions of the radically different first version of the Z film, as offered on CBS (radio and TV) on 25 November, Lane could have had no inkling of the plotters’ plans for the film. There never was, it almost passes without remark, formal notice of the first version’s withdrawal for “editing,” merely the announcement that Time-Life had acquired film rights in addition to the still ones.

In A Citizen’s Dissent, Lane noted that advance proof sheets of his original defense brief were “sent to the United Press International (UPI) by the Guardian. The UPI responded that they ‘wouldn’t touch it’” (3) No wonder. If the Milwaukee Journal report of 26 November 1963 was accurate, UPI had “obtained” (or, more likely, merely been allocated) the original film rights for the Z film’s first version (4). Lane’s reference to having viewed it on TV would inevitably have set alarm bells ringing within the senior ranks of the organisation: It was now involved in the dissemination of amnesia and confusion with regard to the film, not the film itself.

(1) Complete drivel, of course, as Pat Valentino recently proved on Len Osanic’s Black Op radio: the film was shown on a Los Angeles TV station, KTLA-TV, during the Clay Shaw trial, in February 1969, six years earlier than Groden and the DZS claim. http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2008.html (Show #368, 3 April 2008).

(2) DeLloyd J. Guth & David R. Wrone. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Biography, 1963-1979 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980), p.267: “Dallas Prosecutor’s News Conference,” NYT, 26 November 1963, p.14. The transcript, the compilers note in parenthesis, was “from WBC-TV.” Curious how this conference was faithfully recorded and transcribed, but not that given by the Parkland doctors on 22 November 1963.

(3) Mark Lane. A Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane replies (NY: Fawcett Crest, April 1969), p.19.

(4) AP, "Movie Film Depicts Shooting of Kennedy,” Milwaukee Journal, November 26, 1963, part 1, p.3: "The film also was being distributed by United Press International Newsfilms to subscribing stations. WITI-TV in Milwaukee is a subscriber, but will reserve judgment on whether to show the film until after its officials have viewed it." For the context of this paragraph, see here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12216&view=findpost&p=136517

It should be noted that:

1) Lane’s ignorance of the changes made to the first version of the Z-fake was still complete by the time of Rush To Judgment’s publication in 1966; and

2) the left turn was from Houston onto Elm is recorded as being present on the Z-fake (version 1) by the Warren Report itself, a fact blithely and enduringly overlooked by the sharp-eyed and principled defenders of the Z-fake’s veracity.

Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964).”

You’ll find these useful, too:

The edited Zapruder film: The vanishing left turn from Houston onto Elm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8952&view=findpost&p=87147

Early print reports of the Zapruder film and its contents (most extensive, though there is an earlier version somewhere on this site):

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261

[Robert Harris]

Paul, did you email Lane to see why he said that and on what station the film appeared? Did you ask him if he still believes it?

Did you call the station and ask them? Did you contact UPI?

I presume you did, since I'm sure you consider this important enough to verify your sources. What did they say?

Robert Harris

[John Dolva]

"A motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat, was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show show exactly the same situation."

http://karws.gso.uri...l_Guardian.html

Or

"A motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat, was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show show exactly the same situation."

esit:add OK

Edited August 8, 2010 by John Dolva

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, did you email Lane to see why he said that and on what station the film appeared? Did you ask him if he still believes it?

Did you call the station and ask them? Did you contact UPI?

I presume you did, since I'm sure you consider this important enough to verify your sources. What did they say?

Robert Harris

I did a number of things, Bob, but, for the moment, I'll refrain from boring you with all of the tedious detail.

One avenue of inquiry provided powerful, if indirect, confirmation of my proposition. Without being too cryptic about it - for I made a promise to one respondent which I intend keeping - it's safe to say that sight of the first version of the Z-fake could be almost as injurious to health as witnessing the assassination itself.

A second elicited a mildly amusing reply from an eminent collector in the kinescope field, who irately demanded to know why I didn't just google "Zapruder film" and watch it on-line. I had sent him this:

The Valley Independent, (Monessen, Pennsylvania), Tuesday, November 26, 1963, Page 5

Film Showing Assassination Is Released

NEW YORK (UPI) — United Press International Newsfilm early today was first on the air with exclusive film showing the assassination of President Kennedy.

The film is 16mm enlarged from 8mm. It was shown on a New York City television station.

The sequence, shot by an amateur photographer in Dallas Friday, begins with motorcycle police coming around the corner followed by the Kennedy motorcade.

The President is then seen leaning over when the bullets strike. Mrs. Kennedy puts her right arm around the President and he slumps out of view. The film then shows a Secret Service agent running toward the car.

The film was shown in slow motion and also stopped at key points in the assassination. The scene was shown four times at different speeds and under different magnifications.

Copies have been rushed to United Press Newsfilm clients all over the world.

I forgave him his impatience for the obvious reason.

[Craig Lamson]

Paul, did you email Lane to see why he said that and on what station the film appeared? Did you ask him if he still believes it?

Did you call the station and ask them? Did you contact UPI?

I presume you did, since I'm sure you consider this important enough to verify your sources. What did they say?

Robert Harris

I did a number of things, Bob, but, for the moment, I'll refrain from boring you with all of the tedious detail.

Translated from Rigbyspeak Robert.....

NO.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, did you email Lane to see why he said that and on what station the film appeared? Did you ask him if he still believes it?

Did you call the station and ask them? Did you contact UPI?

I presume you did, since I'm sure you consider this important enough to verify your sources. What did they say?

Robert Harris

I did a number of things, Bob, but, for the moment, I'll refrain from boring you with all of the tedious detail.

Translated from Rigbyspeak Robert.....

NO.

And I thought you were only interested in "photographic fact"! I am shocked to see you straying into the realm of, well, research. You sure you're feeling ok?

Lane was of little interest because he's i) a player* and ii) he's hardly likely to have videotaped WNEW-TV's showing of the Z-fake in November 1963. There were other, more interesting, priorities, not least trying to find a kinescope or a copy of the original UPI film. How thorough the CIA was in covering its tracks remains to be fully tested.

* Lane has had numerous opportunities to speak out on the issue, not least in April 1975. To the surprise of no one familiar with his career, he didn't take them.

[Craig Lamson]

Paul, did you email Lane to see why he said that and on what station the film appeared? Did you ask him if he still believes it?

Did you call the station and ask them? Did you contact UPI?

I presume you did, since I'm sure you consider this important enough to verify your sources. What did they say?

Robert Harris

I did a number of things, Bob, but, for the moment, I'll refrain from boring you with all of the tedious detail.

Translated from Rigbyspeak Robert.....

NO.

And I thought you were only interested in "photographic fact"! I am shocked to see you straying into the realm of, well, research. You sure you're feeling ok?

Lane was of little interest because he's i) a player* and ii) he's hardly likely to have videotaped WNEW-TV's showing of the Z-fake in November 1963. There were other, more interesting, priorities, not least trying to find a kinescope or a copy of the original UPI film. How thorough the CIA was in covering its tracks remains to be fully tested.

* Lane has had numerous opportunities to speak out on the issue, not least in April 1975. To the surprise of no one familiar with his career, he didn't take them.

Like I said,

Translated form Rigbyspeak...NO

[Paul Rigby]

Like I said,

Translated form Rigbyspeak...NO

Photographic fact trumps witness testimony every time - er, doesn't it?

But there's your mission, Craigster, your chance to make a non-photographic research splash: Get Lane to go on record issuing a repudiation of what he wrote in 1963. Good luck with getting a reply. I believe the evidence of this forum isn't too auspicious!

[Craig Lamson]

Like I said,

Translated form Rigbyspeak...NO

Photographic fact trumps witness testimony every time - er, doesn't it?

But there's your mission, Craigster, your chance to make a non-photographic research splash: Get Lane to go on record issuing a repudiation of what he wrote in 1963. Good luck with getting a reply. I believe the evidence of this forum isn't too auspicious!

No, I just love watching paul (I don't know how a shadow works) rigby, stick his head up his butt.

He has done a wonderful job of it.

Thanks for the grins.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

...

No, I just love watching paul (I don't know how a shadow works) rigby, stick his head up his butt.

He has done a wonderful job of it.

Thanks for the grins.

here's for another 'grin,' Hollyweird could care less where a shadow falls., especially when the ONLY audience for a film is the Warren Commission...

thanks for your futile defense of the indefensible, great for "grins"... carry on!

[Paul Rigby]

No, I just love watching paul (I don't know how a shadow works) rigby, stick his head up his butt.

Bit obsessed with your opponents' bottoms, I can't help noticing.

Here's Laney getting all righteous about Dan Rather and which version of the Z-fake is the bigger fake. Now there's a discussion for the philosophers, most likely of deception:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXi0usMq30E

In the documentary The Garrison Tapes, there's a wonderful segment on Lane's attempt, in conjunction with Mort Sahl, to prepare Garrison to feign shock on the Carson show. A skill he himself put to some use in 1975.