What prevented Dulles & Angleton from destroying the Zapruder film?

[Paul Rigby]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Whatever the genuine reason Abraham Zapruder was there recording, I suspect too many people knew he was and the existence of the film. Not releasing would have been suspicious, so it needed altering. Dulles and Angleton probably did feel slightly uneasy with the way it looked in its original format. But, confident the whole media establishment misdirecting the public would work. The 13 year delay in releasing is highly suspicious by Time / Luce. But, they’ll say it was such a graphic video depicting American’s greatest tragedy, the nation wasn’t ready for it. In reality, it was enough time for public passion to be somewhat diluted. Inconveniently with Vietnam, Nixon etc, public outrage at politicians since left passions very high by the time of the release. But, the campaign was also well under way to sully JFK’s reputation and erode any legacy. 
Helms, I think was well on board. And what McCone didn’t know, didn’t hurt him. 

The problem here, Chris, is that you're approaching history the wrong way round, viewing it backwards instead of forwards.

Yes, the film's existence was publicized, but the American people initially had no confirmation of the precise content of the Zapruder film until frames were actually printed. Could a substitution have been contemplated - or even attempted? The very thought seems preposterous. But yet it's true. It happened. 

For the curious fact is that the first four frames to appear in US newspapers, purporting to be from the Zapruder film, are to be found in a few US afternoon newspapers - the Philadelphia Daily News and the Orlando Evening Star, to name but two - on 26 November, prior to the complete nationwide distribution of Life magazine's edition dated 29 November. And they weren't from Zapruder's film, but rather the film attributed to Mary Muchmore, the lady who denied to the FBI that she had shot any footage of the assassination.

As for Life's failure to exploit its purchase of Z fake film rights, David Lifton's essay Pig on a Leash remains unimprovable:

“In short, it would appear that Life behaved in a manner that what was most unusual, and peculiar for an institution in a capitalist economy: It laid out the equivalent of some $900,000 for a literary asset and then failed to exploit that asset…Life magazine is not an eleemosynary institution” (p.314)*.

 He returned to the same theme later in the essay: “Life seemed to behave in a most extraordinary way: It failed to recoup its investment” (p.351). He went on to observe that even though “social mores were different in 1963, human nature does not change. Life had an extraordinary property – a motion picture film, yet, aside from the publication of a select number of frames, it acted to keep it off the market” (pp.351-2)*.

* Page references from Jim Fetzer (ed.) The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2003).

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

The problem here, Chris, is that you're approaching history the wrong way round, viewing it backwards instead of forwards.

Yes, the film's existence was publicized, but the American people initially had no confirmation of the precise content of the Zapruder film until frames were actually printed. Could a substitution have been contemplated - or even attempted? The very thought seems preposterous. But yet it's true. It happened. 

For the curious fact is that the first four frames to appear in US newspapers, purporting to be from the Zapruder film, are to be found in a few US afternoon newspapers - the Philadelphia Daily News and the Orlando Evening Star, to name but two - on 26 November, prior to the complete nationwide distribution of Life magazine's edition dated 29 November. And they weren't from Zapruder's film, but rather the film attributed to Mary Muchmore, the lady who denied to the FBI that she had shot any footage of the assassination.

As for Life's failure to exploit its purchase of Z fake film rights, David Lifton's essay Pig on a Leash remains unimprovable:

“In short, it would appear that Life behaved in a manner that what was most unusual, and peculiar for an institution in a capitalist economy: It laid out the equivalent of some $900,000 for a literary asset and then failed to exploit that asset…Life magazine is not an eleemosynary institution” (p.314)*.

 He returned to the same theme later in the essay: “Life seemed to behave in a most extraordinary way: It failed to recoup its investment” (p.351). He went on to observe that even though “social mores were different in 1963, human nature does not change. Life had an extraordinary property – a motion picture film, yet, aside from the publication of a select number of frames, it acted to keep it off the market” (pp.351-2)*.

* Page references from Jim Fetzer (ed.) The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2003).

 

That’s the way I usually work, start with the outcome and work backwards. 

Who paid the sum? Was Luce reimbursed? Perhaps he was found income to fill that sum elsewhere. Did Luce have a relationship with the CIA? 
He was no friend of JFK. 
 

I agree with you that it is all dubious in nature. 

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

That’s the way I usually work, start with the outcome and work backwards. 

Who paid the sum? Was Luce reimbursed? Perhaps he was found income to fill that sum elsewhere. Did Luce have a relationship with the CIA? 
He was no friend of JFK. 
 

I agree with you that it is all dubious in nature. 

There is this about Luce from Mr. Simkin.  an impressive list of associates in the field also cooperating with the mockingbird.

Henry Luce and British Intelligence - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

[Denny Zartman]

These are interesting questions, and the discussion here and on the other thread has been fascinating.

I think at the time there was a lot of psychological value in having the world know of the existence of the film and people for the most part were reassured knowing it was in the hands of a private institution as big and well-respected as Life. People knew it was in the hands of investigators, scientists, ect. and probably felt it would be an invaluable aid to finding out exactly what happened. So the known existence of the film adds to the credibility of Life for whatever it reports on the details of that day. People trusted they would be reporting accurately.

It would also be understandable why the film wouldn't be screened in full, due to the graphic nature and the sensitivities to the Kennedy family. That makes for a good public excuse. But the back and to the left head snap indicates an impact from the front. That would be the real primary reason to keep it unreleased.

I guess I'm kind of halfway on the Z film. There seems to be pretty convincing evidence of some tampering going on, with the story of the two presentations and all. I'm not fully convinced that it's full of special effects and travelling mattes like some are, but there was probably some alteration. I personally would guess there were frames removed that showed bullets striking in or near the limo, and of course the whole tight left turn onto Elm was excised.

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

There is this about Luce from Mr. Simkin.  an impressive list of associates in the field also cooperating with the mockingbird.

Henry Luce and British Intelligence - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Thanks Ron, great post from Mr Simkin. 

[Ron Bulman]

On 5/1/2021 at 10:29 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I'd imagine no extant files remain, if any might likely heavily redacted.  Will we ever know?  The only copies of the unaltered film were in possession of the cia and ss.  This is detailed in doug hornes recent (?) presentation on the z film.  Which is in a recent related link on the forum I didn't readily find.  

So I googled it.  doug horne zapruder.  It took me to this.

Zapruder’s JFK Assassination Footage Altered by Nefarious Forces | Winter Watch

Which is great but when you click on the hornes article link or google it further takes you to this.

WordPress › Error (assassinationofjfk.net)

As does another search.

Jmo.  Dulles and Angleton saw the unaltered version.

 

W and Denny, I still don't remember what thread here on the forum had the link to the Doug Horne - Zapruder article.  Googling DH - Z still didn't help.  But it's the most comprehensive, detailed thing I've ever read on the Zapruder film.  It details the original going to Chicago, being intercepted there by the Secret Service and taken to Hawkeyeworks.  Briefing boards from two different copies prepared on the 23rd and 24th, neither team doing this aware that the other did so.  Frames removed from the original at the time of the head shot to eliminate "debris" disbursement.  And detail of shots?  The blackened exit wound.  "Hollywood" technology available.

The article is essential to understanding, if I can find it again.   

[Jamey Flanagan]

Yeah, according to those who have seen the unaltered Z film it does show the lead car and the limo turning on elm. Greer mistakes the service road in front of the TSBD for Elm and once he realizes his mistake he turns hard left to narrowly miss the curb. Once the shooting starts they say that you can see a bullet hit the top corner of the Stemmons Freeway sign sending debris flying. I wonder if JFK was possibly hit from some of this debris and shouts "I'm hit!" which Kellerman said he heard the President say in his thick Boston accent. Viewers of this unaltered film also say that there is significant action going on there at the sign. They say the umbrella man is furiously pumping his umbrella up and down and that his companion, the dark complexioned man steps out in the street raising his fist. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

The question that needs answering is not:

Why would anyone alter the Zapruder film and then destroy it?

but rather:

Why would anyone alter the Zapruder film instead of destroying it?

As I asked Paul Rigby on another thread:

If the conspirators (whoever they might be) wanted to conceal the incriminating evidence contained in the Zapruder film, why did they go to all the trouble of altering it, rather than simply making the film vanish?

They must have had physical access to the original and all the copies that existed at the time, in order to alter them. So why didn't they destroy them instead? It would have been much easier and quicker, wouldn't it?

'Accidentally' destroying the film would have completely eliminated the possibility that anyone in the future would discover any of the incriminating evidence that the film contains. So why didn't they do that?

They were very stupid conspirators to leave all that incriminating evidence in the film, weren't they? Why did they alter other parts of the film but leave those incriminating parts in?

For millions of viewers of the Zapruder film, from the early bootleg copies to the Geraldo/Groden TV screening and Stone's JFK, the 'back and to the left' movement is probably the single most obvious sign of a shot from the front and therefore of a conspiracy. There doesn't appear to be a coherent alternative explanation for that movement (assuming that Alvarez's melon-shooting experiment has been shown to be a fraud). So why did they decide to leave that bit in when they could easily have prevented people from ever seeing it?

[Paul Rigby]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The question that needs answering is not:

Why would anyone alter the Zapruder film and then destroy it?

but rather:

Why would anyone alter the Zapruder film instead of destroying it?

As I asked Paul Rigby on another thread:

If the conspirators (whoever they might be) wanted to conceal the incriminating evidence contained in the Zapruder film, why did they go to all the trouble of altering it, rather than simply making the film vanish?

They must have had physical access to the original and all the copies that existed at the time, in order to alter them. So why didn't they destroy them instead? It would have been much easier and quicker, wouldn't it?

'Accidentally' destroying the film would have completely eliminated the possibility that anyone in the future would discover any of the incriminating evidence that the film contains. So why didn't they do that?

They were very stupid conspirators to leave all that incriminating evidence in the film, weren't they? Why did they alter other parts of the film but leave those incriminating parts in?

For millions of viewers of the Zapruder film, from the early bootleg copies to the Geraldo/Groden TV screening and Stone's JFK, the 'back and to the left' movement is probably the single most obvious sign of a shot from the front and therefore of a conspiracy. There doesn't appear to be a coherent alternative explanation for that movement (assuming that Alvarez's melon-shooting experiment has been shown to be a fraud). So why did they decide to leave that bit in when they could easily have prevented people from ever seeing it?

Boyczuk takes the case

Oh dear, a lawyer who doesn’t read. Still, as Smashie and Nicey, two legendary British disc-jockeys, regularly reminded listeners, “charidee” must always be our watchword. In that spirit, I’m prepared to delete this reply just as soon as you’ve read post twelve in this thread.

But only upon payment of a seven-cent nickel.

[David Andrews]

22 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

You make some interesting points, none of which I agree with.

The CIA didn't always act to further the interests of its businesses and industries. Far from it. In the cases of, most obviously, the USSR, Eastern Europe and China (post-1949), the agency's extensive programmes of covert action (assassination and sabotage, to be specific) were designed to achieve precisely the opposite - they sought to close markets to Western countries, the better to starve the Communist "beast." 

Then there is the case of Cuba which, after the near-extirpation of the country's Communist Party & trade union leadership in the late 1940s, finds the CIA throwing its weight behind Castro's July 25 movement, subsequently destroying extensive US holdings and investments in the country in preference to destroying detente & bringing the Cold War 90 miles off America's shores. This proved, as intended, a massive boon to the US' military and intelligence "communities" & their suppliers, but not, to name but two, its American sugar and beef producers.

As for the CIA and the Lucepress, the limited revolt of the latter doesn't occur until US bombers begin striking over the Vietnam border into China in late '65 or early '66.

Finally, I really don't believe Helms represented any sort of impediment to Dulles and Angleton - Helms' job was to shield and facilitate them, not impair. McCone, ghastly though he unquestionably proved*, was an irrelevance.

*JFK, in a phone call to RFK in March 1963, dismissed McCone as an arsehole and regretted his appointment.

I don't think the Luce press was in revolt against CIA in publicizing the Z-film.  I just think the film quickly grew into too big a legend to credibly suppress at the rumor stage.  Zapruder appeared live on the Dallas NBC affiliate in the afternoon of Nov. 22.  Too many "organization men"* from too many organizations were after the film by then: careers were at stake.  When frames and explication did appear in Life, they were presented in the terms and ethos best for the cover-up, under the existing circumstances.  And the film was not widely shown until 1975, so essentially it was win-win for CIA and Luce, and whoever pointed out otherwise was a nut.

I agree that Helms and McCone were facilitators, but they balanced that against personal and organizational risk.  McCone facilitated by swallowing hard and looking the other way.

_______

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Organization_Man

Edited May 3, 2021 by David Andrews

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The question that needs answering is not:

Why would anyone alter the Zapruder film and then destroy it?

but rather:

Why would anyone alter the Zapruder film instead of destroying it?

As I asked Paul Rigby on another thread:

If the conspirators (whoever they might be) wanted to conceal the incriminating evidence contained in the Zapruder film, why did they go to all the trouble of altering it, rather than simply making the film vanish?

They must have had physical access to the original and all the copies that existed at the time, in order to alter them. So why didn't they destroy them instead? It would have been much easier and quicker, wouldn't it?

'Accidentally' destroying the film would have completely eliminated the possibility that anyone in the future would discover any of the incriminating evidence that the film contains. So why didn't they do that?

They were very stupid conspirators to leave all that incriminating evidence in the film, weren't they? Why did they alter other parts of the film but leave those incriminating parts in?

For millions of viewers of the Zapruder film, from the early bootleg copies to the Geraldo/Groden TV screening and Stone's JFK, the 'back and to the left' movement is probably the single most obvious sign of a shot from the front and therefore of a conspiracy. There doesn't appear to be a coherent alternative explanation for that movement (assuming that Alvarez's melon-shooting experiment has been shown to be a fraud). So why did they decide to leave that bit in when they could easily have prevented people from ever seeing it?

Because:

a.) It looks tremendously suspicious losing it or accidentally destroying it. Some may say proof there was a conspiracy. 
b.) Most people who watch the film are not hunters or weapons experts and they don’t watch it multiple times to analyse it. When you tell an audience that’s the president getting shot from behind, people believe it. That’s actually what happened for a long time. You don’t need to convince everyone, only most people. We still have people who watch that video and think Jackie, a SS man in the front or an SS man in the follow up car shot the president. That’s proof of the varying perception of a human being and the effectiveness of propaganda. Had a neutral public audience been shown the video and simply asked, where was he shot from, the perception would change. Being told something by a seemingly trusted authority usually sways the public, as we have a natural proclivity to conform. 

[John Butler]

9 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Because:

a.) It looks tremendously suspicious losing it or accidentally destroying it. Some may say proof there was a conspiracy. 
b.) Most people who watch the film are not hunters or weapons experts and they don’t watch it multiple times to analyse it. When you tell an audience that’s the president getting shot from behind, people believe it. That’s actually what happened for a long time. You don’t need to convince everyone, only most people. We still have people who watch that video and think Jackie, a SS man in the front or an SS man in the follow up car shot the president. That’s proof of the varying perception of a human being and the effectiveness of propaganda. Had a neutral public audience been shown the video and simply asked, where was he shot from, the perception would change. Being told something by a seemingly trusted authority usually sways the public, as we have a natural proclivity to conform. 

My take on the film is that it is the government's (executive branch agencies) explanation for the public to explain what happened in Dealey Plaza.  Whose going to read the Warren Report?  Not the general public.  The reason for alteration is they, the planners, did not know exactly how the assassination would turn out.  They had general parameters in their plan.  They wanted the assassination to be done by a lone nut shooter and the film had to conform to it.  They had used this assassination technique before and would use the patsy aspect again later.  The true genius of the film was its horrific nature.  Kennedy did not need to be killed in public in such a horrible manner.  It is what they wanted. 

That's enough to convince one that it was authentic and did so for decades.  Secondarily, this film was kept from the general public for over a decade.  The true value of that is psychological.  These horrific scenes would replace people's faded memories.  Gee, that not was I saw, but it must be true.  There it is in color.  Or, If they read their altered testimony later well that must be what I said.  There it is in black and white.  I signed it.   

Edited May 4, 2021 by John Butler

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, John Butler said:

My take on the film is that it is the government's (executive branch agencies) explanation for the public to explain what happened in Dealey Plaza.  Whose going to read the Warren Report?  Not the general public.  The reason for alteration is they, the planners, did not know exactly how the assassination would turn out.  They had general parameters in their plan.  They wanted the assassination to be done by a lone nut shooter and the film had to conform to it.  They had used this assassination technique before and would use the patsy aspect again later.  The true genius of the film was its horrific nature.  That's enough to convince one that it was authentic and did so for decades.  Secondarily, this film was kept from the general public for over a decade.  The true value of that is psychological.  These horrific scenes would replace people's faded memories.  Gee, that not was I saw, but it must be true.  There it is in color.  Or, If they read their altered testimony later well that must be what I said.  There it is in black and white.  I signed it.   

Yes, people’s memories do change over time, I am sure it made many people doubt themselves and what they saw. As I mentioned further up the thread, there would have been a naivety around video editing back them. I do like the point you make re: the Warren Commission, barely anyone would read it and potentially how they span it would not have immediately been a finished work. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I wrote:

Quote

Why would anyone alter the Zapruder film instead of destroying it?

Chris Barnard replied:

Quote

Because ... It looks tremendously suspicious losing it or accidentally destroying it. Some may say proof there was a conspiracy.

It would indeed look suspicious, but much less so than, say, having the main suspect shot dead by a dodgy nightclub owner in the basement of police HQ, surrounded by dozens of cops, in front of millions of viewers on live TV. Accidents do happen; Life's photo technicians did in fact damage the film, presumably by accident. A handful of the more paranoid over-imaginative conspiracy enthusiasts have been suspicious, but this apparent accident has never generated any suspicion at all among the general public, as far as I'm aware.

It would certainly look much less suspicious than the 'back and to the left' head movement, which is the one item of anti-lone-nut evidence that's widely known among the general public, and which to many people is the prime evidence that more than one gunman was involved. The only home movie that shows the 'back and to the left' movement clearly is the Zapruder film. One 'whoops' moment in the photo lab, or during the film's journey around Dallas and Chicago, and the task of pushing the lone-nut theory becomes vastly easier.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

They wanted the assassination to be done by a lone nut shooter and the film had to conform to it.

Did the people behind the assassination really have the lone-nut explanation in mind all along? I'd like to see some solid evidence for that.

Not everything is a conspiracy! The lone-nut explanation was a political device, promoted largely by bureaucrats in Washington and then by the media, in order to contain the general public's questioning of established institutions. The assassination was a political event that just happened to involve more than one gunman. The conspiracy aspect is not the important factor.

On Mr Butler's second point, if the Zapruder film "had to conform to" the lone-nut theory, why does it not do so? Why does it contain so much evidence that contradicts the lone-nut theory? If anyone did alter the film to make it fit the lone-nut theory, they didn't do a very good job, did they?

It's not only the Zapruder film that contradicts the lone-nut theory. The whole body of photographic and eye-witness evidence makes it blindingly obvious to most people that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy of some sort.

The impression I get is that the people behind the assassination couldn't care less about what the various photographs and home movies showed. There was no intensive gathering of photos and films, many of which remained unknown to the authorities, to the general public, and obviously to the conspirators also, until months or years after the assassination. As long as the shooting happened and the gunmen were able to get away undetected, why should the conspirators care?