Lifton and Morningstar, nice but no cigar.

[Bob Ness]

18 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Within 30 minutes, I was looking at bound volumes of a professional journal, the American Cinematographer, devoted to editing and optical printing. (Name may be slightly incorrect.)  That's when I learned all about "optical printers"  --the basic tool for "special effects" photography --and that's when I went into full immersion mode as to how these machines work. 

CBS Producer Robert Richter loaned me a rather special item --his own personal 35 mm copy of the Zapruder film. (Another person who provided important assistance was producer Haskell Wexler). 

Thanks so much David for recounting some of your experiences from your journey. As time goes on, first and even second- hand testimony becomes harder and harder to come by. It's irreplicable and invaluable.

American Cinematographer is actually the journal of motion picture photography rather than editing and post-production but obviously covers a lot of those areas. Did you have a chance to speak to Haskell on any of these issues regarding the possible manipulation of the film? He certainly would be regarded as a leading authority in the world at that time.

[Richard Price]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Let's be clear. In saying you think the Z-film was part of the plan, are you proposing that Zapruder was somehow "in on it"?

Pat, I wrote a long reply, which unfortunately disappeared as I went to post it.  I will try to replicate it later.  Short answer, for now is no, not necessarily.  It is a possibility, but not a necessity.  Many unwitting people were used/manipulated in many ways.

I will try to replicate my longer reply at a later time.

[David Lifton]

17 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

... to add on the source of Audrey Bell's statements on the location of the head wound, here is an excerpt from Dr Aguilar's chapter from "Murder in Dealey Plaza" book edited by J. Fetzer (2000):

"The Globe immediately refuted that speculation, reporting. "But others, like (Dr. Richard Dulaney) and (neurosergeon Dr. Robert) Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, therefore exposing the head wound". Similarly, author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn't see JFK's head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry. "Where was the wound?", Perry pointed to the back of the President's head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound". During sworn interviews with the ARRB in 1998, Dr. Paul Peters reported , "(anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.) Jenkins said, "Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you'd better step up here and look at his brain." And so at that point  I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked into the President's head...". The ARRB's Gunn inteviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, M.D. on March 21, 1997. reporting, "He (Grossman) and Kemp Clark (Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland) (sic) together lifted President Kennedy's head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President's head." (page 193).

Quoted from Aguilar, G, The converging medical case for conspiracy, In: Murder in Dealey Plaza, J. Fetzer (ed.), Chicago Press, 2000.

Re:Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was. Response;  this occurred during our filmed interview of Nurse Audrey Bell --in the summer of either 1989 or 1990.   I believe --but am not certain --that she made a similar statement when she was interviewed by Doug Horne of the ARRB (circa 1995- 1998).  DSL

Edited October 31, 2022 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

16 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Many speculate that the murder of JFK was supposed to implicate the Cuban government in the triangulated fire with a few participants and that it was after-the-fact that the conspiritors changed the plan to then implicate a lone wolf.

If the original plan was to implicate the Cuban government, then controlling the body and all bystander films would not have been necessary.

So, I'm going to guess that those things were not planned in advance and were done in great haste after-the-fact.

What are your thoughts on that DL?

When I have talked about changing the "medical facts" in the JFK case, I am referring to altering the wounds so as to create a false story of how JFK died.  (I am referring there to the geometry of the shooing (i.e., how many times JFK was hit, and from what direction etc.).  But that has nothing to do with "the Cuban government" per se. Yes, the Cuban government was dragged into this, but that was by implication; because LHO was framed for a murder he did not commit; and--once that case "emerged" -- LHO's prior political stance, his admiration of Castro, and his travels (attempting to go to Cuba etc.)  became pertinent.  DSL

[David Lifton]

12 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Thanks so much David for recounting some of your experiences from your journey. As time goes on, first and even second- hand testimony becomes harder and harder to come by. It's irreplaceable and invaluable.

American Cinematographer is actually the journal of motion picture photography rather than editing and post-production but obviously covers a lot of those areas. Did you have a chance to speak to Haskell on any of these issues regarding the possible manipulation of the film? He certainly would be regarded as a leading authority in the world at that time.

Yes, I spoke with Haskell Wexler --and so did Fred Newcomb.  In fact, it was Fred who made the connection with Haskell; and Haskell  who then arranged for us to spend a day (at the Beverly Hills Office of Time-Life), looking at (i.e., examining) a beautiful 16mm copy of the Z film; plus the collection of 4 x5 frame-by-frame transparencies.  As I recall, we did not get into (or pursue) any issues of authenticity with Haskell (who, BTW, passed in 2015).  His contribution was permitting us to have access to this important film material.  As you may also be aware: I arranged to rent a full-sized 35 mm microfilm reader (from somewhere in Beverly Hills) and trundled it up the multiple stairs to the Time-Life office.  Once the Z images were viewed on a microfilm reader, it became pretty obvious that the large JFK head wound --the one located towards the front-right-hand-side of the head, and which no one saw at Parkland -- looked "painted on"; also, the back of JFK's head (from Z 221 & Z-223 [as I recall] plus  Z 335, Z337) -- where the Dallas doctors saw the "occipital wound" -- appeared to have been deliberately "blacked out"  (DSL)

P.S. It is very difficult today--in 2022 --to reach back into the past, and recall (or resurrect) my astonishment at some of these visual (or "optical") discoveries. To quote Josiah Thompson (author, Six Seconds in Dallas), the Zapruder film was, as he once said, "the closest thing to absolute truth."  Of course, as events evolved and various discoveries were made, it became clear to me,  nothing could be further than the truth.  The Z film --our precious "time clock" on the assassination -- was a fraud, just another item of falsified evidence.  It still contains very valuable data, of course, but in the final analysis --and if the English language is to have any meaning--it is an optical forgery; and best viewed as an artifact, not a fact.

As to its being a "time-clock," that idea can be --and should be --discarded. 

Another factoid:  Sheriff Bill Decker was sitting in the back seat of Chief Curry's car, which was stopped near the mouth of the Triple Underpass --when JFK's limo was midway down Elm Street and shots were fired.  Either when he testified --or that night, in the Dallas Times-Herald --Decker gave his estimate as to the "length" (in time) of JFK's assassination.  It was not "six seconds" or anything like that.  As I recall --and I will change this writing if need be --it was closer to 20 seconds.  DSL

Edited October 31, 2022 by David Lifton
clarity.

[David Lifton]

On 10/29/2022 at 1:02 PM, David Lifton said:

According to a statement issued by FBI Director Hoover about 11/26/66 (and published in the NY Times at the time), the statements in the FBI report about the Bethesda autopsy (i.e., in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report) were made by the autopsy doctors at the time of the Bethesda autopsy. (10/29/22 - 1 PM PDT)

10/30/22 Postscript:  IOW: FBI Director Hoover's statement took the following position re the S& O report and the  (Bethesda) Naval autopsy report (and addressing any differences between the two): that the S & O FBI report recorded "oral statements" made by the autopsy doctor(s) at the time of the autopsy examination;  whereas. . .the Naval autopsy (dated 11/24/63) represented the "final conclusions" of the autopsy.  IMHO: that's an interesting prescription for a cover-up, but that's what Director Hoover said, as reported in his statement of 11/25/63 (and which was published in the NY Times, either that day or the next. (DSL, 10/30/22 -10:40 PM PDT)

Edited October 31, 2022 by David Lifton
Adding to clarity. Further data.

[Bob Ness]

38 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Yes, I spoke with Haskell Wexler --and so did Fred Newcomb.  In fact, it was Fred who made the connection with Haskell; and Haskell  who then arranged for us to spend a day (at the Beverly Hills Office of Time-Life), looking at (i.e., examining) a beautiful 16mm copy of the Z film; plus the collection of 4 x5 frame-by-frame transparencies.  As I recall, we did not get into (or pursue) any issues of authenticity with Haskell (who, BTW, passed in 2015).  His contribution was permitting us to have access to this important film material.  As you may also be aware: I arranged to rent a full-sized 35 mm microfilm reader (from somewhere in Beverly Hills) and trundled it up the multiple stairs to the Time-Life office.  Once the Z images were viewed on a microfilm reader, it became pretty obvious that the large JFK head wound --the one located towards the front-right-hand-side of the head, and which no one saw at Parkland -- looked "painted on"; also, the back of JFK's head (from Z 221 & Z-223 [as I recall] plus  Z 335, Z337) -- where the Dallas doctors saw the "occipital wound" -- appeared to have been deliberately "blacked out"  (DSL)

Quite interesting. Haskell was a friend of a friend (fellow ASC member) and would have been able to add quite a bit of information regarding the condition of the film. I'd also be interested in how the optical printing may have been evident in the frames or whether any were missing. The lack of detail in the occipital region is evident in available digital copies but whether that is from an effect or simply the toe of the exposure range of the film is difficult to say. Higher resolution copies would be needed to determine that. 

The custody of the original film itself clouds that evidence like just about everything else. Regardless of where a person may stand on the JFKA there can't be any doubt the investigations into it was pure amateur or worse.

[Paul Bacon]

5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

When I have talked about changing the "medical facts" in the JFK case, I am referring to altering the wounds so as to create a false story of how JFK died.  (I am referring there to the geometry of the shooing (i.e., how many times JFK was hit, and from what direction etc.).  But that has nothing to do with "the Cuban government" per se. Yes, the Cuban government was dragged into this, but that was by implication; because LHO was framed for a murder he did not commit; and--once that case "emerged" -- LHO's prior political stance, his admiration of Castro, and his travels (attempting to go to Cuba etc.)  became pertinent.  DSL

You've left me a little unclear.  Do you not buy the speculation that the original intent of the conspiritors, was to pin the blame on Cuba/Russia?

[Micah Mileto]

On 10/29/2022 at 5:35 PM, David Lifton said:

Changing the subject slightly:

Re: 

Daniel,

"Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was."

My answer (DSL answer): When I first interviewed Nurse Audrey Bell -- on camera - in 1971 (approx.)  We went over this point --repeatedly-- because I was fully cognizant of its importance.

In the 1970's (or 80's/90's?) interview, did Bell also talk about Perry complaining of receiving phone calls (from Bethesda?) trying to get him to change his opinion on the throat wound?

Edited October 31, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Denis Morissette]

The earliest reference to the JFK-Tippit body switch I could find was a 1968 article. 

 

https://postimg.cc/F1JmsX3k

 

https://postimg.cc/G4LZDW8Q

 

https://postimg.cc/QBR4fwtv

 

https://postimg.cc/V5c16HR7

 

https://postimg.cc/Sj74z71m

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/29/2022 at 4:30 PM, David Lifton said:

Its amazing to me that, all these years laters, there is still any serious dispute as to whether the JFK limo stopped --ever so briefly-- during the shooting,

 

The problem, David, is that there are two other films that (supposedly) also had to have been altered in order to maintain synchronicity between the three. And that (supposedly) there was no opportunity for this to have happened.

It would be reassuring if someone has done a study showing that there indeed was opportunity to alter the other films.

Still, I'm inclined to believe that the limo, at the very least, came to a sudden near-stop that appeared to some as being a complete stop. Otherwise how could it be explained that such a large number of witnesses could be so consistently wrong?

 

[David G. Healy]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

[...]

It would be reassuring if someone has done a study showing that there indeed was opportunity to alter the other films.

[...]

 

 

theNix in-camera original has gone poof (per the Nix family). What is the "other" film of which you speak?

Edited November 1, 2022 by David G. Healy

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

[...]
It would be reassuring if someone has done a study showing that there indeed was opportunity to alter the other films.
[...]

10 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

theNix in-camera original has gone poof (per the Nix family). What is the "other" film of which you speak?

 

I don't know David, I tend to forget names of people and things I haven't studied much.

But I do recall that the Nix film was the one that would likely need to be altered to remove a slow-down or stop. The third film didn't really show much, and maybe therefore didn't need altering.

But I wish you would have been around when this was last discussed because one of the non-alteration guys seemed to have a pretty good argument for why the film could not have been altered. While nobody on the alteration side put up much of an argument. (Pat Speer might have been the one. Or maybe an LNer.)

(I wish there was a searchable repository where issues like this, once settled, could be archived. So that they wouldn't get lost and need to be argued over and over again.

 

[Micah Mileto]

On 10/30/2022 at 10:24 PM, David Lifton said:

 

Doesn't the Zapruder film not really show the large head wound? The red blob appears to "move around" the head because it's supposed to just be the bloody inner surface of a skull fragment hanging on by a piece of scalp? Is it also possible that all of Doug Horne's alleged "photo experts" are working off of the fallacy of thinking the red blob is brain?

Edited November 2, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[David G. Healy]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't know David, I tend to forget names of people and things I haven't studied much.

But I do recall that the Nix film was the one that would likely need to be altered to remove a slow-down or stop. The third film didn't really show much, and maybe therefore didn't need altering.

But I wish you would have been around when this was last discussed because one of the non-alteration guys seemed to have a pretty good argument for why the film could not have been altered. While nobody on the alteration side put up much of an argument. (Pat Speer might have been the one. Or maybe an LNer.)

(I wish there was a searchable repository where issues like this, once settled, could be archived. So that they wouldn't get lost and need to be argued over and over again.

 

First off Sandy this will never be "settled" here's why: no one can verify the authenticity of the alleged in-camera Zapruder film (stored at either NARA of the 6th floor mausoleum). The best Roland Zavada and his quest for saving the Z-film as a piece of case evidence was, he confirmed the film was indeed Double 8mm KODAK film, that's it, PERIOD. Rollie had little or no knowledge concerning optical film effects, he told that to me during a phone call prior to a SMPTE meeting at Lake Tahoe. Altering the "content" of the Z-film in-camera original? The best I can say is: many, many alterations to specific frames (at Life Magazine occurred for publication) and, any multi frame motion segments of the film needed to accomplished by the end of February 1964 (when the WC met in full and discussed said the film and other related evidence). Thats around 90 days...  To add insult to injury, because of continued non-verification and authentication of the alleged in-camera Z-film it could and possibly has been altered multiple times since 1964 -- with the advent of computers and the demise of optical film printing the last 30 years... the art and black magic of film printing is dead.......

I discussed this subject with Gary Mack in early 2000's and his final comment to me was revealing: "Who cares? The Zapruder film will never, EVER see the inside of a courtroom anyway!" And, it hasn't since Jim Garrison/New Orleans...

To accomplish and legit study of the issue here's what you need: 1. authenticated and validated 11-22-63 copy of the in-camera original Z-film (LIFE's copy); 2. the actual Z-film the Warren Commission screened late Feb 1964 (not a copy the actual 8mm film they viewed during that meeting....

My take? If the Zapruder in-camera original film isn't sitting in the bottom of a Dallas landfill, I'd be shocked...