Andrews Air Force Base 22/11/63 Color

[Robin Unger]

[David Von Pein]

JFK Assassination: As It Happened: NBC-TV

Edited July 22, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Robin Unger]

Two from David's blog site

[David Von Pein]

Full-sized:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/R8zrKJ2kGoI/AAAAAAAAAhY/hy2MRzibLuk/s1600-h/142a.%2BCasket%2BComing%2BOff%2BAF1.jpg

Edited July 22, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Joseph Backes]

Guys, let's stay focused. I'm not interested in additional photographic material of the scene at Andrews AFB, especially the Black and White stuff that we're familiar with.

The question is, where did this color film, or color video, come from? Who took it? And where has it been for

nearly 49 years?

The two clips being offered for sale on the website sure looks like video; color TV to me. If Gary Mack is only looking at the still capture Robin Unger has put in this thread, and / or the animated .gif, then I can see where he thinks that came from film.

I don't really care which it is. I want to know who took it. I want to know its provenance. I want what archivists call the meta-data.

Let's find that out.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Joseph Backes

[David Von Pein]

I want to know who took it. I want to know its provenance. I want what archivists call the meta-data.

Let's find that out.

Why is that important?

Edited July 22, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Joseph Backes]

I want to know who took it. I want to know its provenance. I want what archivists call the meta-data.

Let's find that out.

Why is that important?

Von Pein, you're dumber than Cinque.

[David Von Pein]

Von Pein, you're dumber than Cinque.

Thanks.

Care to answer my question now?

Edited July 22, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Joseph Backes]

You're dumber than Cinque is my answer.

[David Von Pein]

You're dumber than Cinque is my answer.

~Yawn~

~Stretch~

Edited July 22, 2012 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

I want to know who took it. I want to know its provenance. I want what archivists call the meta-data.

Let's find that out.

Why is that important?

Because it can't be introduced as evidence in a court of law unless the provenance is known and documented.

What is it, film or video?

This is a more important question because there was a guy who testified before the ARRB who claimed that a special Army communications unit was sent to Dealey Plaza to videotape the president's motorcade.

Someone also claimed to have seen the assassination on television on the afternoon of Nov. 22 in the offices of IBM in Dallas.

If there are military videos of the arrival at Andrews, perhaps the person who testified before the ARRB was correct, and there is previously unknown videos of the assassination.

Bill Kelly

JFKcountercoup

[David Von Pein]

Because it can't be introduced as evidence in a court of law unless the provenance is known and documented.

You're wrong about that, Bill. ....

"Courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this [JFK] case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

Vince also told me this via private correspondence:

"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London [during the TV docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"] by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial." -- Vincent Bugliosi; August 22nd, 2009

Edited July 22, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Joseph Backes]

That the fundamental issue of simple fact gathering about the photographic record of the assassination of the President of the United States actually has to be explained to a dufus like DVP should tell you all you need to know about him, he's not in this to actually help anyone.

The simple questions of who took the photograph, with what equipment, what setting(s), what kind of film, where was it processed, among other questions are fundamental to any honest study of the photographic record.

In our digital age, knowledge of the provenance of the photographic record is more important than ever. We need to not only know the provenance, but the history of the photographic record itself. We need to know the chain of possession. We need to know if it changed medium, from 8mm to 16mm to 35mm, etc, from film to video, from video, and DVD, to the multiple computer formats that allow us to see images online.

We need to know if it was cropped to divert attention away from something we could see if we had the whole product, which is why Harold Weisberg stressed the importance of the photographic images over by the sprocket holes in the original Zapruder film, and why he was the first to publish the entire Altgens film.

We need to know if anyone airbrushed anything in, or out. The Altgens photo as reproduced in the magazine "Four Dark Days in History," was cropped and airbrushed to draw attention to the fact that JFK, though his face is partially obscured by the limousine's rear view mirror, has clearly been hit by at least one bullet and he is reacting to it. Both Connally and JFK are more illustration than photographic image here.

We need to be aware that when something from the JFK photographic record has been enhanced in any way, who did that, and how.

We need to know if any governmental body had possession of the original item.

I applaud the people who did the research and tried to collect and preserve the photographic record in this case. I applaud the people who tried to learn everything possible about every photograph and film. I don't applaud people who think they're great because they have collected various JFK, and JFK assassination images online as though there is this contest to have the most images on one website. I don't applaud people who think any meta-data or contextual information about the photographic record is not important and not worth bothering about.

In an age of Photoshop the more information we have about a photograph the better. And perhaps, just perhaps, if people knew the photograph and it's provenance we'd get less people like Cinque and DVP.

[David Von Pein]

That the fundamental issue of simple fact gathering about the photographic record of the assassination of the President of the United States actually has to be explained to a dufus like DVP should tell you all you need to know about him, he's not in this to actually help anyone.

You've got to be kidding with this crap about the Andrews Air Force Base color film.

Here again, we have a conspiracy theorist focusing on all the wrong things (as usual).

You actually think that a film taken at Andrews AFB, hours after JFK was shot, has some kind of evidentiary value in the investigation of who killed the President and whether there was a conspiracy?

Get real. That film is totally meaningless when it comes to answering any of the major questions regarding President Kennedy's murder.

Why on Earth are you elevating that film's significance to the same level as that of the Altgens photo and the Zapruder Film?

Edited July 23, 2012 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

That the fundamental issue of simple fact gathering about the photographic record of the assassination of the President of the United States actually has to be explained to a dufus like DVP should tell you all you need to know about him, he's not in this to actually help anyone.

You've got to be kidding with this crap about the Andrews Air Force Base color film.

You actually think that a film taken at Andrews AFB, hours after JFK was shot, has some kind of evidentiary value in the investigation of who killed the President and whether there was a conspiracy?

Get real. That film is totally meaningless when comes to answering any of the major questions regarding President Kennedy's murder. Why on Earth are you elevating that film's significance to the same level as that of the Altgens photo and the Zapruder Film?

Here again, we have a conspiracy theorist focusing on all the wrong things (as usual).

First off, we are not talking about 399, we are talking about a film of the casket being removed from AF1.

And we are not talking about a fake theatrical trial in London, we are talking about a US Grand Jury - where evidence must be presented for indictment before it goes to trial.

Grand Juries are usually more lenient over the provenance of evidence than trial courts, as they permit hearsay and other types of evidence that is not permitted in trial courts.

Is it a film or video? Do you or does anyone know for sure?

Is it new or is it one that was generally available that we didn't know about.

Where did it come from?

How is it totally meaningless?

For instance, someone has been trying to sell an ambulance that they say is the grey ambulance in the photo. Certainly if the sale of that vehicle goes to court to certify its validity, the film/video would certainly be of value and not meaningless.

It is also meaningful to get as many perspectives of each of the significant events as possible.

And David, can't you see under the plane, they're taking the body out in another casket and putting it on a helicopter!

BK

JFKcountercoup

Edited July 23, 2012 by William Kelly