What prevented Dulles & Angleton from destroying the Zapruder film?

[Chris Bennett]

On 5/4/2021 at 8:44 AM, Chris Barnard said:

I wonder if some of the still classified papers being held are relating to a plot to kill Castro with a very similar assassin setup that killed JFK. A cross triangulation and a fall guy. 
Are there any other foreign assassinations that mirror this by the military/CIA ? 

Hi Chris, you might check out the work of William Kelly, Larry Hancock and others in tracking down the Pathfinder operations, which involved shooting Castro with a high powered rifle as he drove through a slowed down section in an open jeep. One would presume they had a patsy handy to take the fall. 
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2018/10/part-ii-pathfinder-at-npic-and-dealey.html
https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/corroboration/

More recently the has been good research on The Black Nine, an extremely secret Pathfinder sniper team that “disappeared” in mid to late 1963, ostensibly infiltrated into Cuba to assassinate Castro. But some think this sniper team was purposefully turned on JFK instead. 
https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2019/04/20/wheaton-names-update/

Hope this helps,

Chris

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Chris Bennett said:

Hi Chris, you might check out the work of William Kelly, Larry Hancock and others in tracking down the Pathfinder operations, which involved shooting Castro with a high powered rifle as he drove through a slowed down section in an open jeep. One would presume they had a patsy handy to take the fall. 
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2018/10/part-ii-pathfinder-at-npic-and-dealey.html
https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/corroboration/

More recently the has been good research on The Black Nine, an extremely secret Pathfinder sniper team that “disappeared” in mid to late 1963, ostensibly infiltrated into Cuba to assassinate Castro. But some think this sniper team was purposefully turned on JFK instead. 
https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2019/04/20/wheaton-names-update/

Hope this helps,

Chris

Thanks a lot, Chris. A great couple of articles. There is so much that sways you. I couldn’t help but, think about the pilot mentioned toward the end of “JFK & The Unspeakable” by James Douglass and whether he could ID the latin looking chap on the plane. 
Then there is the CIA chap in “A lie too big to fail” by Lisa Pease, who stated the assassination team had been lured to a location and extinguished themselves. 
Then there is the photo supposedly of Rip Robinson’s Commando Team in the Congo with a chap holding a black umbrella on 22/11/64, a year to the day. 
It all gets the mind thinking. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I wrote:

Quote

Does David Healy agree with Paul that the car pulled to the left? If so, how would he explain the fact that three other home movies and two photographs corroborate what the Zapruder film shows?

David sort of replied:

Quote

dgh: put them side by side and show us the folly. Your making a lot of noise but, alas, where's the BEEF***

Firstly, David will find out what the word 'your' really means here:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling

Secondly, I'd guess David's reply means that he does agree with Paul that all the films and photos were faked. Again: three home movies and two still photographs, plus the Zapruder film, show that the car did not move over into the left-hand lane. How did the masterminds manage to fake them all, given that:

• the films and photos came to light at different times;
• they were distributed and became publicly available at different times;
• and some of them were publicly available within a very short time of the assassination?

How was it done? Please describe the process in detail, so that we can compare the plausibility of that process with the plausibility of the alternative: the witnesses who stated that the car moved left were mistaken.

I'm not using this example just because it makes Paul and David look like a pair of credulous [deleted]. Remember, it was Paul who brought up these particular witnesses' statements in the first place. He evidently thought they were irrefutable evidence of fakery. But a minute's critical thought shows that these witnesses must have been mistaken.

Quote

dgh: of course some photo's/film's are faked, the conspiracist's have had neigh on 60 years to "fake" photo's.

Firstly, David will find a good illustration of the accepted use of the apostrophe here:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

Secondly, the conspiracists did not have nigh on 60 years to perform their dastardly fakery. To take just one example, the Moorman photo was shown on TV less than three hours after the assassination. Copies were distributed among journalists soon after that, at which point they must have been out of the reach of any photo-fakers.

Any alteration must have been done within a few hours. The problematic part of the photo, the police motorcyclists in the left-hand lane, occupy a quarter of the image. How was that piece of fakery done in the time available? Please describe the process in detail. Then move on to the Altgens 7 photo and describe in detail how that one was altered in the time available.

Quote

Here, it's Mother's Day and I'm real busy, explain one simple thing to me, clearly and without equivocation: what was KODAK-Dallas's true intent in using in-came film stock for the alleged 3 Zapruder film copies instead of *dupe* stock.

My first reply to this question would be: no idea. I wasn't there. As I understand it, no-one's even sure whether Kodak or Jamieson did the job. Sources offer differing accounts. Richard Trask speculates that they may have shared the work. In any case, my second reply would be: so what?

Now, perhaps David will be brave enough to answer the question that Paul has avoided. How could the film-fakers have been sure that no photograph or home movie would come to light in the future, containing proof that the Zapruder film was a fake?

[Jamey Flanagan]

Jack White did a nice presentation one time of the discrepancies between the different photos depictions of the people lined up on the streets to watch the parade. Let me ask those who think all the films and pictures are 100% authentic, how do you explain one picture showing completely different people lined up on the street with the Z film supposedly at the very same instant? 

[Jamey Flanagan]

The Great Zapruder Film Hoax:

 

[David G. Healy]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I wrote:

David sort of replied:

Firstly, David will find out what the word 'your' really means here:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling

Secondly, I'd guess David's reply means that he does agree with Paul that all the films and photos were faked. Again: three home movies and two still photographs, plus the Zapruder film, show that the car did not move over into the left-hand lane. How did the masterminds manage to fake them all, given that:

• the films and photos came to light at different times;
• they were distributed and became publicly available at different times;
• and some of them were publicly available within a very short time of the assassination?

How was it done? Please describe the process in detail, so that we can compare the plausibility of that process with the plausibility of the alternative: the witnesses who stated that the car moved left were mistaken.

I'm not using this example just because it makes Paul and David look like a pair of credulous [deleted]. Remember, it was Paul who brought up these particular witnesses' statements in the first place. He evidently thought they were irrefutable evidence of fakery. But a minute's critical thought shows that these witnesses must have been mistaken.

Firstly, David will find a good illustration of the accepted use of the apostrophe here:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

Secondly, the conspiracists did not have nigh on 60 years to perform their dastardly fakery. To take just one example, the Moorman photo was shown on TV less than three hours after the assassination. Copies were distributed among journalists soon after that, at which point they must have been out of the reach of any photo-fakers.

Any alteration must have been done within a few hours. The problematic part of the photo, the police motorcyclists in the left-hand lane, occupy a quarter of the image. How was that piece of fakery done in the time available? Please describe the process in detail. Then move on to the Altgens 7 photo and describe in detail how that one was altered in the time available.

My first reply to this question would be: no idea. I wasn't there. As I understand it, no-one's even sure whether Kodak or Jamieson did the job. Sources offer differing accounts. Richard Trask speculates that they may have shared the work. In any case, my second reply would be: so what?

Now, perhaps David will be brave enough to answer the question that Paul has avoided. How could the film-fakers have been sure that no photograph or home movie would come to light in the future, containing proof that the Zapruder film was a fake?

Listen up! If you have no conception or idea what the official results of the 1964 WCR, nor what Rollie Zavada's conclusions are, forget asking any questions regarding the Zapruder Film. Buy a few books, plenty of author's hereabouts.

To end our discussion, your gamin' it, Dude. I went round and round with the gang of eight for years. So, take your Lone Nut, LHO did it all by his lonesome game to those naive enough to play. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

7 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Jack White did a nice presentation one time of the discrepancies between the different photos depictions of the people lined up on the streets to watch the parade. Let me ask those who think all the films and pictures are 100% authentic, how do you explain one picture showing completely different people lined up on the street with the Z film supposedly at the very same instant? 

We explain it by the fact that Jack White's analyses are wildly off-base and have been debunked time and again over the past 30 years. There's really nothing more to it than that. Not only did he make errors in terms of syncing multiple films and photos to a specific point during the assassination sequence, he made further observational errors about these so-called "completely different people" and their positions therein.

[Paul Rigby]

CIA advice to its employees, 1961

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-...i2a03p_0001.htm

APPROVED FOR RELEASE 1994

CIA HISTORICAL REVIEW PROGRAM

18 SEPT 95

OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Intelligence market for the product of the camera fan's fun.

SNAPSHOTS AT RANDOM

Jane Schnell

Everyone who has taken photographs in a foreign country has collected potential ground photographic intelligence. The traveler turns his camera upon anything that excites his interest -- the civil engineer on peculiarities in the construction of dams, roads, bridges, and city buildings; a woman perhaps on clothing, jewelry, and hair styles; a doctor on things related to disease and therapy; a farmer on crops and tools and methods of farming. The more widely traveled the man behind the camera and the broader his interests, the more discriminating he is likely to be in photographing subject matter peculiar to a particular place. But the potential intelligence thus collected is often lost; there are two minimum requirements for transforming it into actual photo intelligence. One is that the pictures must be identified, at least by the name of the place or subject, the direction the camera was facing, and the date. The other is that they must get to the market.

The most omnivorous and insatiable broker for the photo intelligence market is the CIA Graphics Register. If you have a batch of photos taken anywhere abroad, properly identified and preferably with negatives, the Register would like to look them over. If they were taken in London or Paris or Vienna, say, the pickings may be slim, but the Register would like to decide for itself. And if it knows in advance that you are going to have a tour in some less well frequented place, it may be interested enough in promoting your hobby to supply you with camera and film. With a minimum of effort, adding to the pictures you normally would take anyway a notation of the place, time, and direction and as much descriptive data as you can, you are likely to produce some useful photos.

Targets of Opportunity

The results will be much better, however, if you add to this minimum effort a little more and become as familiar as you can with photo collection manuals and lists of requirements on the area. Graphics Register can refer you to general publications on these subjects;1 and attaché offices in all the U.S. diplomatic missions have such manuals and requirements lists in detail for their particular areas. You can pick out of the listings a few things that are of interest to you and accessible for photographing in the course of your normal day-to-day activities. One standing requirement, for example, is photographs of prominent persons in almost any field, especially the military, political, economic, and scientific. If an election is coming up and campaigning is in progress, why not take a few pictures of the speakers? If they are within 50 feet of a 35 mm. camera, the heads can be enlarged to an identifiable likeness. The closer the better, naturally, but the main thing is to get them on film and in focus.

The fact that an object may have been photographed previously by no means disqualifies it: changes, or the absence of changes, in it over a period of years or of weeks may be important. And changes aside, it is amazing how many pictures of the same object can be taken without telling the whole story. Although I must have seen hundreds of photographs of the Eiffel Tower before I went to France, it wasn't until I walked under it that I realized the first balcony has a big hole in it. So looking up, I photographed the tower through the hole; and then, just for fun, I kept trying to find another photograph that showed there was such a hole in the middle of the balcony. It was three and a half years before I saw one. A good photographic practice is to take the normal view of an object and then try to think up a different viewpoint and take that also. Few people look up, and it is often by looking up that you find an extraordinary picture.

If a new gas storage tank is being built in the city where you are stationed and you drive past it going to work every day, why not photograph it once a week or once a month? The photos will tell how long it takes to build it, what types of materials and methods of construction are used, and how much gas storage capacity is being added. Maybe you don't know what a gas storage tank looks like, and all you see is a big tank being built. Take a picture of it anyway; obviously it is built to store something. What you don't know about it the analyst will. That is what he is an analyst for, but he can't analyze it if you don't get him the pictures.

Captions

A bit of extra effort put into captioning your shots will pay off, too. One kind of information you may not be in the habit of noting for your own purposes, technical data, may be of importance to the Register. This includes the kind of camera and lens, the type of film, and the speed of exposure, as well as a serial number for each roll and frame. You should especially make note if you have used a telephoto or wide-angle lens. Information on the type of film and exposure speed will not only assist in its development but also make it possible for you to get advice on how to correct any mistakes you make and improve your technique.

Roll 20, frame No. 3. 2 May 1959. 1100 local time. Malaya, Kelantan state. Town, road, waterway.

Main road between Kota Bharu and Kuala Trengganu looking south at ferry toward village of Jerteh. Note cut at right for bridge under construction (see frames 1 and 2 for other shots of bridge).

Most important, however, is good identifying data about each picture. The essential elements are the date (and the time of day may be useful); the precise place; the subject or subjects, with special note of particular features of intelligence interest; and the direction the camera was facing, by compass or with reference to landmarks. It might be noted, for example, that frame no. 7 of roll 2 was exposed at 1330 on 17 November, one mile east of Otaru, Hokkaido, on the road to Sapporu, looking north and showing a Soviet trawler in the bay. Or from a second-floor street window of the Hotel Europe in Bangkok, looking down on a passer-by identified as so-and-so on his way to the corner to hail a samlor.

These essentials can frequently be supplemented to advantage with additional comments or with printed matter bearing on a particular picture. Perhaps the idea of the target came from facts you read in the newspaper; clip the article out and send it along. You find your way around unfamiliar cities with the help of guidebooks, free tourist maps, and maps bought at local survey offices or book stores. The analyst can use the same material to find his way around your photographs; if you can't send copies, at least make reference to the tools of travel you used. In the absence of printed material it is extremely useful to draw a sketch showing the relationship of pictured objects. A sketch is particularly good when there are several shots of the same subject from different vantage points, or of different subjects near each other, or of subjects that are not mapped. The analyst never complains that he is given too many facts about a picture.

Spies and People

You may want to shoot beyond your targets of casual opportunity and make trips or excursions expressly for the purpose of getting useful pictures. Fine; but since you are presumably abroad on some other government business, it is paramount that you remember you are taking pictures for fun. You should never take photos at the risk of your proper work, your purpose in being there. This need for discretion is of course a greater limitation in some places than in others. Once you have decided upon a target, the thing to do is become as familiar with it as possible, learn for sure just what the limitations of law and discretion are, and forget completely why you want the pictures. Try to take them for some other reason than intelligence collection.

I once wanted to photograph a new electric power plant in Malaya. So far as I knew, nobody would question my taking the pictures; but it is a little odd for a girl to go around photographing power plants. First, I had to find it, somewhere around a certain town. I drove out the main road from that town, which finally passed under some high power wires. After taking pictures of the road in both directions, and the wires and towers in both directions, I drove on, planning to take the next road turning off either right or left parallel with the wires. But at the next turn a sign pointed to the power plant.

I photographed the side road and then drove down it until I came to a one-way bridge with a policeman at each end and the power plant on the other side. The first policeman waved me to a stop. I got out of the car, camera in hand, and went up and asked him why. He said I had to wait a few minutes, the Sultan was coming. I asked what was the big building on the other side of the river. "That's our new power plant," he said proudly. "That's nice," I said, "Does it work now?" "Oh, yes." "Golly," I said, "Can I take a picture of it?" "Sure, why don't you go to the other end of the bridge, you get a better shot." So I shot a lot of pictures, some including the bridge and a nearby railway bridge, with a lot of kibitzing, until the Sultan came past in his Mercedes. Then I thanked the policeman and left, congratulating myself that nothing could have been easier. If I'd been as smart as I thought I was I'd have got a good picture of the Sultan and one of the policeman. No matter how much you see, if it isn't in your camera it's worthless.

The biggest hazard to the camera fan who has ulterior motives is people-himself, ordinary people, and people who might suspect him. If you act suspicious even the ordinary people will become suspicious. If you act quite ordinary even the suspicious people will think you quite ordinary. That is why it is important for you to forget the reason you are taking your pictures. Just take them; but know what you will say if you are questioned. Sometimes if people are watching me take pictures it makes me nervous, so I retaliate by turning my camera on them to make them nervous. In the places I've been they are either so pleased they stop being inquisitive or suspicious or else they are embarrassed and go away. I have been told that in the Middle East they often throw things, and that in the Soviet bloc it can be quite dangerous; but in Asia usually they giggle. Some friends of mine in Borneo used a polaroid camera to divert the people with pictures of themselves while they took candid shots. One Dyak requested a photo of the tattoo on his back; he had never seen it!

Refer to Hard Copy for Image

Roll 27, frame 11. February 1960.

Burma, Kachin state, Shwegu village. Sociological.

Man cutting bamboo.

The necessary equipment for ground intelligence photography consists of one camera and plenty of film. A camera, like a pair of shoes, is an individual and personal matter. I prefer a 35 mm. negative because its 20 or 36 frames per standard roll last longer without changing film, and larger cameras are too heavy and bulky. I would not use a smaller one, of the subminiature class, except for some special reason; the negative is so small that enlargement potential is seriously limited. And ordinary people, if they bother to think about it, think spies use tiny cameras that can be hidden. If you go around more or less like a tourist with a popular-sized one you avoid being conspicuous.

There are many publications on cameras and photographic techniques, on special lenses, on the respective advantages of black-and-white and color, of fine-grain and fast film. I haven't tried to touch on these subjects. All I have tried to do is point out that an opportunity exists for travelers interested in photography to make a considerable contribution to basic intelligence through collecting ground photos. I collected them because I thought it important, because it helped me learn about the place where I was living, and because it was fun.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Guide for Graphics Coordinators. INR/State, October 1960. An excellent new handbook.

A Manual for the Collection of Ground Photography and Related Data. Bureau of Aeronautics, NAVAER 10-35-650, March 1953. This is the best previous guide, illustrating many techniques and giving many examples.

Techniques for Producing Good Ground Photography for Intelligence Purposes. Secret. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, GP/I-198, 18 July 1956.

Volume 4-Political Affairs, of Foreign Service Manual. TL:PA-28, 7-25-60.

A Guide to the Collection of Ground Intelligence Photography on Ports and Harbors. Confidential. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, PIM-2, September 1957.

Amateur Photography from Commercial Aircraft. Secret. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, GP/I--205, 14 August 1956.

Intelligence Collection Guidance Manual-Intelligence Photography. Confidential. Air Force Manual 200-9, 1 February 1955. Intelligence Collection Guidance Manual-Industrial Recognition. Air Force Manual 200-7, 15 December 1955.

Intelligence Collection Guide-Telecommunications. Confidential. Army Pamphlet 30-100, July 1955.

 

 

[David G. Healy]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

We explain it by the fact that Jack White's analyses are wildly off-base and have been debunked time and again over the past 30 years. There's really nothing more to it than that. Not only did he make errors in terms of syncing multiple films and photos to a specific point during the assassination sequence, he made further observational errors about these so-called "completely different people" and their positions therein.

who is "we"...

and, cite(s) would do famously well here, otherwise one might assume you're just attacking another dead guy with years of photography experience. A dead guy that appeared in front go a House of Representatives Committee studying a whole bunch 1960's assassinations that happened before you were born...

He even owned an Advertising Agency in the Ft. Worth area of Texas, for years...

and, sat for an on-camera interview with me in 2003 in Duluth Minnesota...

geeeeez...

Edited May 10, 2021 by David G. Healy

[Jamey Flanagan]

To me, his analysis of the Moorman position in the Z film as in comparison to the famous Moorman headshot photo seemed pretty sound mathematically and geometrically. He seemed to have found the correct line of sight she used but the math didn't add up from her position in the Z film. She originally had said she stepped off the curb to take the picture. When Jack White did the measurements and the math that line of sight he established worked perfectly if taken from the street at a different position than the Z film. Anyone looking at the current Z film with any kind of objectivity can see that something is just off about it. The President that they came to see has just passed in front of them but you have several characters looking ahead as if they are waiting for the Presidential limo to come. And don't get me started on that dang Stemmons Freeway sign! Have you ever seen a road sign parallel to the road it is located on? Who is supposed to be seeing it? People on Main Street looking to their right? Every sign I've ever seen is facing the driver. I know there are weird angles and you have to take into account Zapruder's filming angle but that sign's placement has always bothered me! I think it was somehow inserted into the film over the original and was used to hide the limo and JFK during that first shot. But that's just me and my wild theory I guess, lol!

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

To me, his analysis of the Moorman position in the Z film as in comparison to the famous Moorman headshot photo seemed pretty sound mathematically and geometrically. 

His analysis was neither sound mathematically or geometrically, as Josiah Thompson demonstrated here.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, David G. Healy said:

and, cite(s) would do famously well here, otherwise one might assume you're just attacking another dead guy with years of photography experience. A dead guy that appeared in front go a House of Representatives Committee studying a whole bunch 1960's assassinations that happened before you were born...

He even owned an Advertising Agency in the Ft. Worth area of Texas, for years...

and, sat for an on-camera interview with me in 2003 in Duluth Minnesota...

The fact that he appeared before a House committee does not make his analyses correct, nor does his ad agency ownership, his interview with you 18 years ago or whether he's alive or dead. You appear to be asking for citations of White's work being debunked, so.. let's start with a 17-page thread on this very forum completely invalidating his claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked. Then let's move to Craig Lamson's demolition of White-endorsed theorizing about Zapruder film alteration. Shall I continue?

[Tony Krome]

Brehm: "the car then took off in a zig-zag motion"

Mr. GREER. I was following the contour of the road, the center of the contour of the road as it goes. 

Mr. SPECTER. When you accelerated your automobile, did you at any time come alongside of or pass the police car in front of you? 
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I never passed it. 

Which person above was not telling the truth?

Edited May 10, 2021 by Tony Krome

[Paul Rigby]

On 5/5/2021 at 3:42 PM, Paul Rigby said:

While Jeremy Bojczuk breaks in his all-new, O J Groden-approved footwear, it is time for the rest of us to take one small step for research, one giant leap out of group-think.

In 1964, the task of the Warren Commission lawyers was to support the revised Z fake, first, by excluding those whose recall was deemed too dangerous and/or those whose profession and proximity (motorcycle outriders) conferred added, and decidedly unwelcome, authority to their observations; and then by browbeating the carefully willowed few in an attempt to make their testimony either conform, or merely pose no threat, to the fraudulent film. Subsequent defenders of the Z fake laboured under no such encumbrance, and the message could therefore be delivered much more simply: human memory fallible, film inerrant. But is this true? Is there a germane example that can be tested to see if this proposition is as reliable as it sounds, if only to some? There is.

Consider the periodic recrudescence of claims, many following the alleged debut* of the Z fake on Geraldo Rivera’s ABC-TV’s late-night “Good Night America” on 6 March 1975, that the film was first shown in the days following JFK’s assassination. To venture in to print, online or in hard copy, with such a supposedly defective memory was to suffer, post-1975, the condescension of an outraged orthodoxy. The latter held that this was impossible: the Z film rights had been bought by Time-Life on Monday, 25 November 1963, and the film thereafter suppressed, supposedly on the grounds of taste. A film of the assassination had been shown within that rough timeframe, though, but it was Marie Muchmore’s, not Zapruder’s.

What general impression did this film leave and how did it impact upon viewers? The best description of both was provided by Rick Friedman, in a piece for Editor & Publisher, which likely went to print on 26 or 27 November, for an edition dated 30 November 1963. According to Friedman, many viewers considered the assassination sequence they had just viewed as “too gruesome,” and had responded accordingly, with “at least one television station… besieged with protests after it had shown scenes of the President’s motorcade at the moment of the shooting.”

For comparison purposes, here are the only two known contenders for the identity of that film. I have labelled them in accordance with current orthodoxy:

 Gruesome

Notgruesome

Very obviously, the two are labelled the wrong way round. The Zapruder film is gruesome, the Muchmore not.  

In 2007, a New York-based contributor to an online forum discussion recalled seeing, just before or after JFK’s funeral, a film of the assassination playing “over and over.” She was right, as a 26 November 1963 article, describing the first showing in the country of the film on WNEW-TV (at the unearthly time of 0046hrs), confirmed: “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.” Strike 2 for human memory. 

On the same day, Tuesday, 26 November, the Milwaukee Journal named the film as Zapruder’s, adding this piece of confirmatory detail: “Mrs. Kennedy then jumps up and crawls across the back deck of the limousine, apparently seeking the aid of a secret service man who has been trotting behind the slowly moving vehicle. He jumps onto the car and shoves Mrs. Kennedy back into the seat. Then he orders the driver to speed to the hospital where the president died.” The film attributed to Muchmore, even the pre-splice black and white version, has never extended this far (though perhaps we ought to give the CIA a bit more time). 

One man in no doubt that Zapruder’s film (version 1) had been shown on US television – certainly by Metromedia’s stations, including the aforementioned WNEW & Los Angeles’ KTLA – was none other than Mark Lane. In the course of penning his lawyer’s brief for Oswald, printed in December 1963 by the National Guardian, but commenced on Tuesday, 26 November – he observed that 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 exactly the same situation.” 

The orthodox history the Zapruder film is bunk. And it is time for Jeremy to pass me an enormous slice of mooncake. 

 *At least two non-national TV showings preceded the television “debut”: at 5pm news feature on 14 February 1969, by KTLA-TV in Los Angeles; and in the late hours by WSNS-TV, Ch 44, Chicago, in 1970. The film was given to director Howie Samuelsohn by Penn Jones and later aired in syndication to Philadelphia, Detroit, Kansas City and St. Louis

 

 

 

The assumed bidding process  for the Z fake that left the Lucepress in (nominal) control of the still rights, and UPI-Newsfilm with the film equivalent, was either serendipitous in the extreme, or else a fairy tale to disguise a remarkably shrewd allocation by the plotters. There is every reason to suspect the latter, not least from the ludicrously melodramatic terms in which, for example, Stolley characterized his alleged triumph over CBS’s Rather in the supposed battle for the film rights. Hyperbole is, after all, a characteristic of the anti-alterationists, as a further specimen, this time from James Altgens, amusingly reminds us.

The point of what follows is to suggest, without overtly lying, that Altgens’ photographs went straight from Dallas to the world – without first journeying to AP’s HQ in New York. “All the wires were connected together, which means they got in Africa and London, all over the world, at the same time that people got it in the USA. It was fantastic.” Indeed. The reader is thrown into the benign world of Heath Robinson, where newswires behave like rope or spaghetti, and no CIA beasts lurk.

To confirm how well the combination of Lucepress and UPI-Newsfilm gelled, consider the proximity of their Chicago centers of operation. All three facilities lay within a security friendly, and distinctly handy, walking distance. How much easier to set up a coordinating office charged with preventing discrepancies and, if necessary, responding to any freshly occurring problems, such as, for wild examples, the necessity to terminate the distribution of the film-as-film; or break the plates in response to a changed selection of images.

https://www.loc.gov/resource/usteledirec.usteledirec04873x/?sp=399&r=0.699,0.147,0.304,0.157,0

Illinois White Pages Chicago July 1964 KICH through Z

Image 399 (of 480)

United Press International

                news & administrative 430 N Mich 467-5050

                news pictures                    430 N Mich 644-8320

                news film div                     161 E Grand 644-8890

                coml photography div    430 N Mich WH 4-4733

https://www.loc.gov/resource/usteledirec.usteledirec04873x/?sp=384&r=0.732,0.015,0.304,0.157,0

Illinois White Pages Chicago July 1964 KICH through Z

Image 399 (of 480)

Time & Life Bldg 540 N Mich DE 7-5860

Time Magazine

                advs & editorial ofs 221 NLoSal AN 3-2860

                circulation & subscription dept 540 N Mich WH 4-4720

                production ofc 330 E Cermak DA 6-1212

https://www.loc.gov/resource/usteledirec.usteledirec04874x/?sp=208&r=0.475,0.16,0.607,0.314,0

Illinois White Pages  Chicago July 1964 A through KICA

Image 208 (of 418)

Donnelly RR & Sons Co printers

                Corporate Hdqtrs 2223 SoPkwy 431-8000

                Chicago Mfg Div 350 E Cerkak 431-8000

Did the agency set up a coordinating center in the midst of UPI-Newsfilm, Time and R R Donnelley’s? It may not have been necessary. The four-man Life delegation dispatched from New York to Chicago, ostensibly to provide oversight only for the magazine and its printer, included John Dille, co-author with a 1959 Polish defector, Pawel Monat, of The Spy Among Us (Harper & Row, 1962), a work designed to both stoke Cold War paranoia, and, perhaps less obviously, bolster the counter-intelligence link between Angleton and Papich. As part of the book’s promotion, it produced one of the more surreal moments of CBS’ 1963 output

[David G. Healy]

8 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The fact that he appeared before a House committee does not make his analyses correct, nor does his ad agency ownership, his interview with you 18 years ago or whether he's alive or dead. You appear to be asking for citations of White's work being debunked, so.. let's start with a 17-page thread on this very forum completely invalidating his claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked. Then let's move to Craig Lamson's demolition of White-endorsed theorizing about Zapruder film alteration. Shall I continue?

focus young'en this thread concerns the Zapruder Film, not researcher character assassination. Control yourself, if that is possible.

Edited May 11, 2021 by David G. Healy