Jeremy Bojczuk Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Roger Odisio writes: Quote the original Zapruder film showing those kind of things would contradict that Oswald story. It would expose the story as false. Yes, the Zapruder film does expose the story as false, as I explain below. Quote We know the WC used certain methods to deal with evidence that contradicted their story: ignoring, destroying, losing, or altering it.//But the original Zapruder film was a special problem. The first three ways wouldn't work with it. I don't think this claim stands up. Roger doesn't explain why it wasn't possible to accidentally destroy or lose the film. His reasons appear to be contained in the following paragraph: Quote Zapruder shot his film from right in front of the fatal shots, clearly capturing the murder. That day he was on TV explaining what his film showed. Already there was a bidding war between at least Life mag and CBS for the rights to the film. Life won and had plans to feature some stills in its next couple of issues. The country was fixated on the murder that weekend. It was the crime of the century. It still is. But none of this explains why Life or anyone else who had possession of the original film would not have been able to accidentally-on-purpose destroy the film. After all, films do sometimes get damaged during processing. A good example would of course be the Zapruder film itself, which did in fact suffer damage from genuinely incompetent handling by a technician. No doubt Life would have suffered public embarrassment if it had claimed that a crucial section of the film, or even the whole film, had accidentally been destroyed or damaged beyond repair, or claimed that it had lost the film in transit or allowed the film to be stolen by a souvenir hunter, or whatever other the-dog-ate-my-homework story it came up with. But that would be a small price to pay to prevent an incriminating film being seen by the general public. Alternatively, Life could have put the film in its vault, keeping it largely but not entirely out of public view for over a decade until the immediate fuss died down, which is in fact what happened. Plenty of bootlegs were in circulation after the Shaw trial, and many thousands of people saw the film, but its implications did not become widely known among the general public until millions of people saw the TV broadcast in 1975. Keeping the film largely hidden away was an effective solution to the problem of the incriminating evidence it contained. Quote Instead Life immediately sent it to the NPIC, the CIA film lab in DC where key frames were enlarged and placed on briefing boards That claim only works if you take the Horne/Brugioni story seriously. But recollections three or four decades after the event are flimsy evidence, and Horne's account of anything should be taken with a large helping of salt; he's the guy who tried to derail the ARRB by promoting Lifton's body-alteration nonsense! Roland Zavada takes Horne to pieces in the following PDF, and points out that the film Brugioni dealt with was more likely to be one of the FBI copies than the original, which did indeed get sent to Chicago. Zavada makes two important points: there was insufficient time to perform the alterations in question, and the film that exists today is the actual piece of film that was in Zapruder's camera (which rules out any alterations that required the film to be copied): http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf Quote A simple example is the ridiculous depiction of the head shot(s) in the extant Zapruder that lasts for only one frame (1/18 of a second) As much as I dislike using McAdams's favourite word, this claim is a factoid that keeps cropping up and is easily disproved (I think Horne is to blame for putting this particular idea in people's heads). Even a relatively poor-quality copy of the film shows a vertical plume of brain matter for several frames after frame 313: Frame 314: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg Frame 315: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg Frame 316: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg A better-quality copy may well depict the plume in further frames. Numerous other supposed anomalies have been brought up over the past 20 years or more (Conclusive proof! At last!), only to fall apart at the first hint of skeptical examination (Drat!), as Josiah Thompson recounts here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html Quote But then Life buried it from public view for what became almost 12 years, refusing to show it. Why? Because the original film, the one which exists today, contradicts the lone-nut theory: We see JFK and Connally reacting separately to their non-fatal wounds, as Connally himself insisted. The Zapruder film is the only item of evidence which demonstrates that these non-fatal wounds were too far apart in time to have been caused by one bullet, and too close in time to have been caused by two bullets fired from the sixth-floor rifle. The Zapruder film is the only item of evidence which allows us to calculate how much time the car took to travel along Elm Street. The film limits the amount of time available for three shots to have been fired. It is the film which makes it next to impossible for a lone nut to have loaded, aimed, and fired three shots. Without the Zapruder film, it would be possible to claim that the car's speed just happened to match however long it took for a lone, out-of-practice gunman to load his rickety old rifle, aim carefully, fire the first shot, reload, aim carefully, fire the second shot, reload, aim carefully, and fire the third shot. Three shots, comfortably spaced: the first hits JFK in the back, the second hits Connally in the back, and the third hits JFK in the head. Without the Zapruder film, there would have been no need for all those expert gunmen to try and fail to do what the lone nut is supposed to have done. Without the Zapruder film, there would have been no need to invent the ludicrous single-bullet theory. Destroy the Zapruder film before it beomes available for public inspection, and the lone-nut theory becomes plausible. Quote Their judgement to hide the film was proved correct when we saw the gasps from Geraldo Rivera's audience when they saw the altered version of Zapruder, which led to a reopening of the case. It can't have been any of the supposedly altered parts which induced the gasps. By definition, altering the film would have removed evidence of conspiracy, such the hugely incriminating 'back and to the left' head movement which the forgers somehow neglected to remove. The gasps must have been at least partly due to seeing that 'back and to the left' head movement, which the audience no doubt interpreted as the result of a shot from the front. With an altered film, the only element that would have induced gasps would have been the sight of someone getting shot in the head. Quote I could add discussion of the many examples of film distortions to flesh out the argument--like the fact that the turn on to Elm Street is entirely missing People have been bringing up this point for years, without explaining why the sight of a car turning left was so incriminating that it had to be removed from a home movie. I mean, cars turn left sometimes. There's really nothing remarkable about it. And there's a perfectly plausible explanation for the discrepancy in Zapruder's statement. If Zapruder recalled that he hadn't stopped filming, but the film shows that he had stopped filming, it's vastly more likely that he was mistaken than that anyone went to all the trouble of removing the car's left turn from his home movie for no obvious reason. Again, this is just one of numerous empty claims about alteration, claims for which obvious everyday explanations exist. Witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes. There are threads on this forum which discuss pretty much every supposed anomaly you can think of. Rather than go over all those claims for the umpteenth time, I'd like Roger or anyone else to deal with what appears to be the weakest part of his argument. Let's assume that the Zapruder film not only contradicted the lone-nut theory, but contained evidence so blatant that the authorities couldn't possibly explain it away. Why would the authorities not simply have destroyed the film? As I pointed out, destroying the film would have caused them embarrassment and raised suspicions of a cover-up, but it would definitively have eliminated any possible harm that the Zapruder film could have caused to their theory. Apart from the egg-on-face factor, why would they not have accidentally-on-purpose destroyed the film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 (edited) On 2/10/2024 at 11:48 AM, Roger Odisio said: If you don't believe the Oswald-as-the-lone-assassin story--if you think there were more than three shots, or more than one shooter, or at least one of the shots came from the front--it follows that the original Zapruder film showing those kind of things would contradict that Oswald story. It would expose the story as false. What is to be done by the WC in that case? We know the WC used certain methods to deal with evidence that contradicted their story: ignoring, destroying, losing, or altering it. But the original Zapruder film was a special problem. The first three ways wouldn't work with it. Zapruder shot his film from right in front of the fatal shots, clearly capturing the murder. That day he was on TV explaining what his film showed. Already there was a bidding war between at least Life mag and CBS for the rights to the film. Life won and had plans to feature some stills in its next couple of issues. The country was fixated on the murder that weekend. It was the crime of the century. It still is. The killers were left with only one feasible choice that weekend--alteration of the film to try to obscure what it showed so as to keep the story they were already going with from imploding. Why do you think the killers would not at least have tried that? Their actions the first weekend and beyond establish that they did try. When Life bought the limited rights to the film, we were told they sent it to their Chicago headquarters to begin work on photo layouts. That's not what happened. Instead Life immediately sent it to the NPIC, the CIA film lab in DC where key frames were enlarged and placed on briefing boards to get a clear picture of what the film showed. The killers of course knew Oswald didn't do it. They needed to find out how and to what extent the Zapruder film contradicted their story As that task was being finished early Sunday morning, the film was sent to the then secret CIA lab at Hawkeye Works in Rochester, NY. Why was it sent there? What do you think they were doing at Hawkeye Works if it wasn't film alteration? I asked that question of Robert Groden, an alteration denier, at the Duquesne U seminar in Nov., and he avoided the question by feigning like he misunderstood it. He mumbled something about how the film worked on by Brugioni was not the original. This is an important question to answer if you don't think the film was altered. The film was then sent back to the CIA lab in DC that Sunday evening where a second set of briefing boards was done by a different group, unbeknownst to the first group. Why a second set if the film had not been altered? Why was Dino Brugioni the CIA's primary photo analyst who had worked on the first set, not even told about the second set? Brugioni told Doug Horne that when the JFKA investigation was heating up again in the 70's he mentioned to his then supervisor that he still had one of his boards in his safe. The supervisor became agitated and ordered him the get rid of his board. He did. If both sets of boards were made from the same unaltered film, if no changes were made at Hawkeye Works, why was it necessary to destroy Brugioni's version? It's obvious that Brugioni's version contained things the CIA did not want the public to see. It follows that the films from which the two sets of boards were made were not the same. A simple example is the ridiculous depiction of the head shot(s) in the extant Zapruder that lasts for only one frame (1/18 of a second), shows a brief pink spray above JFK's head and a blob that sprouted on Kennedy's forehead. When interviewed by Doug Horne, Zapruder said he saw something very different: a mostly white spray (probably more tissue and bone than blood at impact) rising much higher in the air and lasting for several frames. That was so spectacular, it was something he could not forget, even when talking to Horne about it 48 years later. While the second set of boards was being worked on, Life went back to Zapruder and paid him more money for all rights to the film, including the right to show it in its entirety as a film. That's where you can get a true sense of what it showed, rather than from just selected slides But then Life buried it from public view for what became almost 12 years, refusing to show it. Why? They had to bury the film because, with the tools available at the time, they weren't able to completely obscure what it showed about what really happened. All those years the film was buried gave the WR story time to take root. When a bootleg copy of the film was shown on national TV in 1975, Life's job of hiding the film was over. They sold it back to Zapruder for $1. That shows what Life's role was. Paying for the film rights was not a money making investment for them, though they did sell extra magazines for a few weeks by publishing some of the frames from the film. They could have made a lot more by showing the film itself while the murder was fresh in people's minds. But they didn't want the public to see it. CD Jackson, Life's publisher, was a long time CIA asset. Life was part of the conservative, anti-JFK empire of Henry Luce. Life was fronting for the CIA throughout the process. Their judgement to hide the film was proved correct when we saw the gasps from Geraldo Rivera's audience when they saw the altered version of Zapruder, which led to a reopening of the case. Imagine what would have been the reaction had they seen the original film showing, for example, the actual head shot(s) without the blob appended to Kennedy's forehead. I could add discussion of the many examples of film distortions to flesh out the argument--like the fact that the turn on to Elm Street is entirely missing, even though Zapruder said once he started filming he never stopped until after the murder (correct me if I'm wrong about that statement). But I wanted to concentrate on whether the claim that the film was not altered can fit the facts as we know them today. The ball is in the court of the deniers and agnostics. Some of the clearest indications of alteration are the impossibly fast movements of Malcolm Summers and Charles Brehm's son, the obvious conflict between Jackie's and Agent Hill's locations and positions in the equivalent Nix and Zapruder frames. I discuss these issues in my article on Z film alteration: Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film Another strong indication of alteration is the absence of a noticeable limo stop in the existing film. When you watch the film at regular speed, which is how the people in the plaza would have seen the event, the limo appears to travel at a steady speed until after the head shot, and the limo speeds up dramatically after the head shot. However, dozens of witnesses, from all over the plaza, said the limo stopped or markedly slowed soon after the shooting began. No such event is seen in the existing film. I reject the argument that all of these 40-plus witnesses experienced the same hallucination. Edited February 12 by Michael Griffith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: People have been bringing up this point for years, without explaining why the sight of a car turning left was so incriminating that it had to be removed from a home movie. I mean, cars turn left sometimes. There's really nothing remarkable about it. And there's a perfectly plausible explanation for the discrepancy in Zapruder's statement. If Zapruder recalled that he hadn't stopped filming, but the film shows that he had stopped filming, it's vastly more likely that he was mistaken than that anyone went to all the trouble of removing the car's left turn from his home movie for no obvious reason. It's always a pleasure to encounter an epistle from the man affectionately known hereabouts as "Pine Gap" - for the zeal and frequency with which he transmits intelligence from the Antipodes, you understand, especially those estimable assorted strayan independent observers - and this latest farrago is no exception. Not since J Edgar Hoover issued his November 1966 statement insisting that the Z film was whole and pure has the case for authenticity been set out with such wit and verve. So, why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it? One key element of any answer lies with the Parkland press conference. The insistence of Perry and Clark at the Parkland press conference that Kennedy was shot from the front threw a significant spanner in the works, not least because their expert, disinterested, first-hand, matter-of-fact descriptions were widely disseminated. How to preserve the credibility of both the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film? The solution was to suppress the film-as-film, hastily edit it, beginning with the turn from Houston onto Elm, and meanwhile bring the public round by degree through the medium of the written word. Here’s the latter process in action. Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston: Quote John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20: “…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him[/b], swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more. A rifle like the one that killed President Kennedy might be able to fire three shots in two seconds, a gun expert indicated after tests. A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events. The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck.” In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm: Quote Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1: “Chicago, Nov. 27 – With the aid of movies taken by an amateur, it is possible to reconstruct to some extent the horrifying moments in the assassination of President Kennedy. As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving. At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper, peering through a four-power telescope sight, fired his cheap rifle.” The 6.5 mm bullet – about .25 caliber – pierced the President’s neck just below the Adam’s apple. It took a downward course." And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm: Quote Paul Mandel, “End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds,” Life, 6 December 1963: “The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat.[/b] Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed–toward the sniper’s nest–just before he clutches it." The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken. Showing the left-turn from Houston onto Elm would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit. So out it went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Means, Opportunity, and Motive for Z-film alteration: Means: Doug Horne's "Two NPIC Events" (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/douglas-p-horne/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-filmsalteration/) shows us that a film that came from the CIA's "Hawkeye Works" laboratory in Rochester New York was delivered to the NPIC on the Monday following Oswald's murder by Jack Ruby. This film differed substantially from the one previously delivered to the NPIC on Saturday, November 23, per analyst Dino Brugioni's description. The November 23 film was the original Z-film. The November 25 film was the altered product. Opportunity: Carl Bernstein's "The CIA and the Media" (https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977) adds to Horne's work in presenting the opportunity. The CIA had strong ties specifically with Life! magazine, which as many of us know, never made a dime off their purchase of the motion picture rights to the Z-film. However, their ownership did provide an opportunity for the film to be delivered to the CIA for alterations on the Sunday after Oswald was killed, and before specific frames went to press during the following week. Motive: This is where my own work comes in. The motive for alteration was to hide the large initial Secret Service inaction to the first shot by hungover agents, as well as the subsequent AR-15 "slam-fire" accident by George Hickey. Oswald had already fired a (frontal) head shot, just after the limousine had turned the corner onto Elm. (See witness Pierce Allman for just how close to the corner this first shot was.) My documentary explains more. (https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Roger Odisio writes: Yes, the Zapruder film does expose the story as false, as I explain below. I don't think this claim stands up. Roger doesn't explain why it wasn't possible to accidentally destroy or lose the film. His reasons appear to be contained in the following paragraph: But none of this explains why Life or anyone else who had possession of the original film would not have been able to accidentally-on-purpose destroy the film. After all, films do sometimes get damaged during processing. A good example would of course be the Zapruder film itself, which did in fact suffer damage from genuinely incompetent handling by a technician. No doubt Life would have suffered public embarrassment if it had claimed that a crucial section of the film, or even the whole film, had accidentally been destroyed or damaged beyond repair, or claimed that it had lost the film in transit or allowed the film to be stolen by a souvenir hunter, or whatever other the-dog-ate-my-homework story it came up with. But that would be a small price to pay to prevent an incriminating film being seen by the general public. Alternatively, Life could have put the film in its vault, keeping it largely but not entirely out of public view for over a decade until the immediate fuss died down, which is in fact what happened. Plenty of bootlegs were in circulation after the Shaw trial, and many thousands of people saw the film, but its implications did not become widely known among the general public until millions of people saw the TV broadcast in 1975. Keeping the film largely hidden away was an effective solution to the problem of the incriminating evidence it contained. That claim only works if you take the Horne/Brugioni story seriously. But recollections three or four decades after the event are flimsy evidence, and Horne's account of anything should be taken with a large helping of salt; he's the guy who tried to derail the ARRB by promoting Lifton's body-alteration nonsense! Roland Zavada takes Horne to pieces in the following PDF, and points out that the film Brugioni dealt with was more likely to be one of the FBI copies than the original, which did indeed get sent to Chicago. Zavada makes two important points: there was insufficient time to perform the alterations in question, and the film that exists today is the actual piece of film that was in Zapruder's camera (which rules out any alterations that required the film to be copied): http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf As much as I dislike using McAdams's favourite word, this claim is a factoid that keeps cropping up and is easily disproved (I think Horne is to blame for putting this particular idea in people's heads). Even a relatively poor-quality copy of the film shows a vertical plume of brain matter for several frames after frame 313: Frame 314: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg Frame 315: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg Frame 316: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg A better-quality copy may well depict the plume in further frames. Numerous other supposed anomalies have been brought up over the past 20 years or more (Conclusive proof! At last!), only to fall apart at the first hint of skeptical examination (Drat!), as Josiah Thompson recounts here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html Because the original film, the one which exists today, contradicts the lone-nut theory: We see JFK and Connally reacting separately to their non-fatal wounds, as Connally himself insisted. The Zapruder film is the only item of evidence which demonstrates that these non-fatal wounds were too far apart in time to have been caused by one bullet, and too close in time to have been caused by two bullets fired from the sixth-floor rifle. The Zapruder film is the only item of evidence which allows us to calculate how much time the car took to travel along Elm Street. The film limits the amount of time available for three shots to have been fired. It is the film which makes it next to impossible for a lone nut to have loaded, aimed, and fired three shots. Without the Zapruder film, it would be possible to claim that the car's speed just happened to match however long it took for a lone, out-of-practice gunman to load his rickety old rifle, aim carefully, fire the first shot, reload, aim carefully, fire the second shot, reload, aim carefully, and fire the third shot. Three shots, comfortably spaced: the first hits JFK in the back, the second hits Connally in the back, and the third hits JFK in the head. Without the Zapruder film, there would have been no need for all those expert gunmen to try and fail to do what the lone nut is supposed to have done. Without the Zapruder film, there would have been no need to invent the ludicrous single-bullet theory. Destroy the Zapruder film before it beomes available for public inspection, and the lone-nut theory becomes plausible. It can't have been any of the supposedly altered parts which induced the gasps. By definition, altering the film would have removed evidence of conspiracy, such the hugely incriminating 'back and to the left' head movement which the forgers somehow neglected to remove. The gasps must have been at least partly due to seeing that 'back and to the left' head movement, which the audience no doubt interpreted as the result of a shot from the front. With an altered film, the only element that would have induced gasps would have been the sight of someone getting shot in the head. People have been bringing up this point for years, without explaining why the sight of a car turning left was so incriminating that it had to be removed from a home movie. I mean, cars turn left sometimes. There's really nothing remarkable about it. And there's a perfectly plausible explanation for the discrepancy in Zapruder's statement. If Zapruder recalled that he hadn't stopped filming, but the film shows that he had stopped filming, it's vastly more likely that he was mistaken than that anyone went to all the trouble of removing the car's left turn from his home movie for no obvious reason. Again, this is just one of numerous empty claims about alteration, claims for which obvious everyday explanations exist. Witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes. There are threads on this forum which discuss pretty much every supposed anomaly you can think of. Rather than go over all those claims for the umpteenth time, I'd like Roger or anyone else to deal with what appears to be the weakest part of his argument. Let's assume that the Zapruder film not only contradicted the lone-nut theory, but contained evidence so blatant that the authorities couldn't possibly explain it away. Why would the authorities not simply have destroyed the film? As I pointed out, destroying the film would have caused them embarrassment and raised suspicions of a cover-up, but it would definitively have eliminated any possible harm that the Zapruder film could have caused to their theory. Apart from the egg-on-face factor, why would they not have accidentally-on-purpose destroyed the film? It's good to see the response of a genuine alteration denier. First, let's get rid of the notion that in this case Life was a separate entity, a profit maximizing corporation seeking to make a buck, while bringing the truth to the public. Life was part of the conservative Luce empire that had no use for Kennedy. As I said, CD Jackson, publisher of Life, was a long time CIA asset. Obviously the CIA couldn't bid against CBS to take control of the Zapruder film. Life was fronting for them and had access to the CIA's virtually unlimited funds.. Ultimately that weekend they paid Zapruder $150,000 for the full rights to the film, a lot of money at that time. But only after first paying him $50,000 for limited rights to publish some frames of the film in Life. They sent the film to the CIA's NPIC lab for briefing boards to be made to clarify what the film showed, (and lied about that for decades, claiming the film was sent directly to Life's headquarters to begin work on the frames to be published in their magazine). Then the film was sent early Sunday morning to the CIA's then secret Hawkeye Works to try altering the parts of the film that contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with. Only after that effort failed, did they go back to Zapruder that Sunday and give him another $100,000 with the intention of burying the film from public view as long as possible. If the original film got out to the public, or even the altered copy that failed to conceal what happened, it would likely kill their Oswald story before it ever got off the ground. This was coupled that weekend with the murder of Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer, so he couldn't contradict their story, so there would be no trial where they would have to defend their story. Your half-hearted attempt to discredit this account is a flat statement that it should not be taken seriously (why?), and besides, Doug Horne is known to have advocated such and such you believe to be false. That won't fly. To begin with, you have to at least address known facts We know briefing boards from the film were done that weekend; a set resides at NARA. The ones at NARA were done after the film was returned from Hawkeye Works. The earlier set done to determine how the film differed from their story were later destroyed. According to Brugioni, he was ordered to get rid of them a decade later when authorities started sniffing around the murder again. Is Brugioni lying about that? About anything he said? Everything? Were there two sets of boards done, and if so why if the film had not been altered? The story offered is that the boards were done for the information of the directors of the CIA and Secret Service. Do you believe that was their purpose? Did the film make the trip to Hawkeye Works once a set of boards clarified what the film showed? If so, for what purpose? What do you think was done there if not film altering? Was the film originally diverted to NPIC instead of going directly to Life headquarters as was the original story? If so, why would they lie about that? Answering those questions should be a decent start for you to explain what you claim happened instead of film altering. You can't get away with simply defaming Horne and apparently Brugioni. Let me answer the question you end with, which you characterize as the weakest part of my argument.. All of the "could have dones" you cite are in fact feasible. The killers had choices about how to deal with the problem of Zapruder contradicting their story. They logically (I've explained the logic) chose to first try alteration. When that failed, they chose to bury the film from public view until their Oswald story took hold. Giving the film back to Zapruder for $1 without ever having shown it, after a bootleg copy was shown on TV, confirms the purpose for which it was bought was indeed to bury it. A review of the actions that weekend and beyond confirms the choices they made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Numerous other supposed anomalies have been brought up over the past 20 years or more (Conclusive proof! At last!), only to fall apart at the first hint of skeptical examination ... There are two Zapruder anomalies that persist, and I predict they will never be explained benignly. First, the overly black patch on the back of Kennedy's head. Second, that the massive wound apparent on the top-right side of Kennedy's head in the film was observed by NO witness prior to the official autopsy. Not a single medical professional at Parkland saw it. Isn't it convenient how those two things contradict what the Parkland professionals saw, but aligns with the Oswald-did-it fabricated story given by the government coverup. Jeremy likes to say that the coverup artists would have just destroyed or kept the film hidden, rather than alter it, if it had something to hide. Well, first off, it is irrelevant what Jeremy thinks they would do. But even if we accept Jeremy's argument... well, guess what... that is precisely what Life did! The only reason the public at large ever saw the film is because of the bootlegged copy shown by Geraldo on national TV. The reason the film was altered in the two ways I mentions is because it was easy to do... they could get it done in their short time frame. They ultimately decided it wasn't good enough. and so they suppressed it. Of course, what I describe here is a hypothesis. But it's the only reasonable one I've seen to explain everything we know. In contrast, Jeremy just kicks the whole thing under the rug and says, "what, me worry?" BTW, I also think that some frames were removed to speed up a short, quick slow-down of the limo just before Z313. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 (edited) I myself say,that there is no such thing as a Zapruder in camera original.It no longer exists. That thing is burned or at the bottom of an ocean or landfill. *Maybe it's next to JFK's brain? 😉 Edited February 12 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) On 2/12/2024 at 12:28 AM, Denise Hazelwood said: I will point to a few things: Linda Willis's assertion that at least one of her father's slide images had been "physically altered" because "something showed in them that the Secret Service did not want known." She specifically mentioned "trains" that should have been visible. See her interview at https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553 towards the end of the interview. This is corroborated by Jim Towner in his family's Sixth Floor Museum "Living History" who said there was something wrong with one of the images on the museum's brochure, because a "train" should have been visible, but wasn't. John Costella's work in describing various "proofs" of Zapruder Film forgery, including "the sign mistake," "the blur mistake," "the lamppost mistake," "the fast-forward mistakes," "the blood mistake," and "the wound mistake. Scroll down for the individual links: https://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/. I have additional, more "subjective" observations to make about the extant film, pointing to its alterations. They may not meet Costella's more exacting standards of "proof," but these anomalies seem best explained (to me at least) by film alteration. See my article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/zapruder-film-alteration.html. Note Zapruder's apparent confusion when shown early frames purported to be of his film in his Warren Commission testimony. Ultimately, it is Arlen Specter who "authenticates" the images, by telling Zapruder, "Well, they were (from his film)," not Zapruder himself who authenticates the images. -Denise Denise, I think Linda Willis' point about no train being visible in Willis 5 has a plausible explanation. The red line on the map shows Phil Willis' line of sight to the 3rd(Southernmost) Pullman car. The location of the black X denoting rear of the last Pullman car can be verified by the two photo inserts that both show the train from very different angles. Willis' red line of sight passes through the eastern edge of the 4th colonnade window which is not quiet visible in Willis 5. So from Phil Willis' location in Willis 5 the trains would not have been visible. Linda Wills did say she and her father walked forward on the grass and took some more photos after the assassination. The black line of sight estimates a position 30 ft west of the Willis 5 photo. Any photos taken from there would show the train in 3 of the colonnade windows. So Linda Willis' memory of trains visible in some photos would be correct but not in Willis 5. The missing photos showing the trains may be part of the group of photos taken after they walked forward. But there never could have been trains visible in Willis 5. NOTE: Other than the 3 Pullman cars there were no other trains in the yard during the shooting. The boxcars seen in the lower insert arrived after the assassination. They are not there in either Of the McIntyre photos taken approx 25 seconds after the head shot. Edited June 1 by Chris Bristow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Chris Bristow, The thing is, the Willis family actually saw their pictures before turning them over to the SS, and specifically remembered the "train" being in one or two of the pictures that should still have been in the pictures when they were finally returned, but weren't. Please listen to her interview at https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553 . You can skip the first 3/4, but definitely listen to the last 1/14. Moreover, Jim Towner, during a family "Living History" interview with the SFM unprompted said there was "something wrong" with one of the images on the museum's brochures, because he knew a "train" should have been in the image, but wasn't. When Linda Willis said that she thought the images were "physically altered, because something showed in them that the Secret Service did not want known," I think that the "something (that) showed" in the original pictures was Agent Hickey holding the AR-15, and that any "train" that was removed was collateral damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) Let's go through the various points that have been made: Claim 1 - The original Zapruder doesn't exist. Michael Crane writes: Quote I myself say,that there is no such thing as a Zapruder in camera original.It no longer exists. That thing is burned or at the bottom of an ocean or landfill. Notice the lack of evidence Michael produces to justify his assertion. What we do have good evidence for is the claim that the original film does exist. It's in the National Archives. Roland Zavada, in his reply to Douglas Horne, points out that if the Kodachrome film currently in the archives is a copy, it will contain certain features which are always generated by the process of copying one Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film. The copy will contain increased contrast, increased grain size, and colour distortion. According to Zavada and Prof. Raymond Fielding, who have examined that film, it contains none of these features. It has to be the original. Zavada was heavily involved in the creation of Kodachrome film when he worked for Kodak, and must know what he's talking about. Of course, we can't rule out the possibility that the lizard people got to him and made him an offer he couldn't refuse, or that the known laws of physics were miraculously suspended on the occasion Zavada inspected the film. But in the absence of any evidence that either of these things happened, the current state of play is that the Kodachrome film in the archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. Since the film in the archives is not a copy, all of the proposed alterations which required the film to have been copied, cannot have happened. Realistically, the only alteration that is still plausible is that the blob on the back of JFK's head was painted in. If anyone wants to maintain that the blob was painted in, they should get hold of someone with the appropriate credentials, and inspect the film that is in the archives. Likewise, if anyone wants to claim that Zavada was mistaken and that the film is a copy, they should again get hold of an expert and inspect the film. Then let us know what the expert says. Here's Zavada's reply to Horne. Please read it this time: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf Claim 2 - Brugioni's 30-year-old or 40-year-old recollections were accurate. Repeating the scenario which requires Brugioni's recollections to be accurate, does not support the claim that those recollections were accurate. Zavada's objections to Brugioni's claims still stand. It is an uncontroversial fact that people get stuff wrong when recalling events from decades earlier. Claim 3 - Life, or Time/Life, had links to the CIA. I can't argue with that. But this demonstrates only that Life might have done what it did after consultation with the CIA. It's quite possible that the CIA prompted Life to do what actually happened: buy the film and keep it (more or less) locked away until 1975. Claim 4 - Life (or the CIA, or anyone else who controlled the film) would not have destroyed the film, because ... Roger does not address the question I asked. He merely repeats his claim: Quote The killers had choices about how to deal with the problem of Zapruder contradicting their story. They logically (I've explained the logic) chose to first try alteration. When that failed, they chose to bury the film from public view until their Oswald story took hold. Sandy agrees: Quote The reason the film was altered in the two ways I mentions is because it was easy to do... they could get it done in their short time frame. They ultimately decided it wasn't good enough. and so they suppressed it. There is no logic in: trying alteration; seeing that it doesn't work; deciding at that point not to destroy the film; retaining a film which contradicts the lone-nut story; and finally making that film available for public viewing. If you have control over a piece of physical evidence which seriously undermines your case, and the only way to be sure that this evidence would not become public is to destroy it, and if it is a simple task to destroy that piece of evidence, you would destroy it. Wouldn't you? Nor is it logical, in the hypothetical scenario I put forward (let's imagine that the film contained evidence of conspiracy that really could not be explained away), to do anything other than destroy the film. This would absolutely eliminate any possibility that the film could contradict the lone-nut story. The only cost would be public embarrassment. If Life (or whoever) understood that the film contained evidence that contradicted the lone-nut story, why would they not have destroyed the film? Please answer the question this time. Claim 5 - The car's turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street was deleted from the film because the shooting had already started by then. What evidence is there that the first shot was fired before or during the car's left turn? Paul supplies a newspaper report which claims that "the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston" and another report which claims that "As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway ... At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper ... fired his cheap rifle." But Paul's two newspaper reports are from five days after the assassination, and were clearly ill-informed and speculative. Denise, on the other hand, claims that the first shot took place "just after the limousine had turned the corner onto Elm", presumably so close to the turn that deletion was required. How many spectators claimed that the shooting began that early? Why did hundreds of people who would have seen and heard it not report such a thing? Were they all bribed or blackmailed? Why did spectators along the first part of Elm Street report seeing JFK smiling and waving to the crowd, apparently uninjured? Why do images exist which corroborate these witnesses? The shooting did not start until the car had travelled some distance along Elm Street. That can't be the reason the car's left turn was deleted. What actual evidence is there that the car's left turn was deleted from the film? The claim that the left turn was deleted rests on Zapruder's statement that he didn't stop filming. But the evidence shows that he did stop filming. He, like all human beings, made a mistake when recollecting something. The left turn wasn't deleted. Zapruder simply stopped filming when he realised that JFK's car wasn't at the very front of the motorcade, and didn't start filming again until the car was on Elm Street. Edited February 13 by Jeremy Bojczuk corrected a typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) 6 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said: Chris Bristow, The thing is, the Willis family actually saw their pictures before turning them over to the SS, and specifically remembered the "train" being in one or two of the pictures that should still have been in the pictures when they were finally returned, but weren't. Please listen to her interview at https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553 . You can skip the first 3/4, but definitely listen to the last 1/14. Moreover, Jim Towner, during a family "Living History" interview with the SFM unprompted said there was "something wrong" with one of the images on the museum's brochures, because he knew a "train" should have been in the image, but wasn't. When Linda Willis said that she thought the images were "physically altered, because something showed in them that the Secret Service did not want known," I think that the "something (that) showed" in the original pictures was Agent Hickey holding the AR-15, and that any "train" that was removed was collateral damage. I have seen that interview and based my evaluation of her recollection on it. I do not contest her father's claim of seeing trains in one of the photos. But there is no doubt about where the train sat and there is no doubt about where Mr Willis stood when taking Willis 5. Based on that, it is a fact that the trains would not be visible through the colonnade windows in Willis 5. There is another interview in which she specifically shows the Willis 5 photo and says this is the photo that her dad said the trains were missing from. Here are both interviews. She shows Willis 5 and confirms it as the photo the trains were removed from at 25:20. She mention another witness taking a photo about the same time that does show the trains. My guess is that she is talking about the Nix film. The trains are visible in Nix but that is due to his location. The contention that the trains were removed from Willis 5 is simply incorrect. They were not visible from his location and that is why they are not in Willis 5. Edited February 13 by Chris Bristow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Notice the lack of evidence Michael produces to justify his assertion. No need to justify at this time.If you disagree you can easily just keep scrolling.Common sense tells you that it's gone. Damn man,almost $50.00 for this puppy dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Coleman Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 But didn’t the previously unseen sprocket images revealed in ‘97, ‘98 match the Z film? And alter a film to disprove the SBT and suggest a front shot? just sayin…… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: There is no logic in: trying alteration; seeing that it doesn't work; deciding at that point not to destroy the film; retaining a film which contradicts the lone-nut story; and finally making that film available for public viewing. This is just more of Jeremy's signature "I wouldn't do that, therefore they wouldn't do that" logic. While it okay to use that kind of logic, it should be limited because it carry's very little weight. (An exception being when the consequences of not doing something would be disastrous.) It is far better to rely on all the evidence we have at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted February 13 Author Share Posted February 13 10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Let's go through the various points that have been made: Claim 1 - The original Zapruder doesn't exist. Michael Crane writes: Notice the lack of evidence Michael produces to justify his assertion. What we do have good evidence for is the claim that the original film does exist. It's in the National Archives. Roland Zavada, in his reply to Douglas Horne, points out that if the Kodachrome film currently in the archives is a copy, it will contain certain features which are always generated by the process of copying one Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film. The copy will contain increased contrast, increased grain size, and colour distortion. According to Zavada and Prof. Raymond Fielding, who have examined that film, it contains none of these features. It has to be the original. Zavada was heavily involved in the creation of Kodachrome film when he worked for Kodak, and must know what he's talking about. Of course, we can't rule out the possibility that the lizard people got to him and made him an offer he couldn't refuse, or that the known laws of physics were miraculously suspended on the occasion Zavada inspected the film. But in the absence of any evidence that either of these things happened, the current state of play is that the Kodachrome film in the archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. Since the film in the archives is not a copy, all of the proposed alterations which required the film to have been copied, cannot have happened. Realistically, the only alteration that is still plausible is that the blob on the back of JFK's head was painted in. If anyone wants to maintain that the blob was painted in, they should get hold of someone with the appropriate credentials, and inspect the film that is in the archives. Likewise, if anyone wants to claim that Zavada was mistaken and that the film is a copy, they should again get hold of an expert and inspect the film. Then let us know what the expert says. Here's Zavada's reply to Horne. Please read it this time: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf Claim 2 - Brugioni's 30-year-old or 40-year-old recollections were accurate. Repeating the scenario which requires Brugioni's recollections to be accurate, does not support the claim that those recollections were accurate. Zavada's objections to Brugioni's claims still stand. It is an uncontroversial fact that people get stuff wrong when recalling events from decades earlier. Claim 3 - Life, or Time/Life, had links to the CIA. I can't argue with that. But this demonstrates only that Life might have done what it did after consultation with the CIA. It's quite possible that the CIA prompted Life to do what actually happened: buy the film and keep it (more or less) locked away until 1975. Claim 4 - Life (or the CIA, or anyone else who controlled the film) would not have destroyed the film, because ... Roger does not address the question I asked. He merely repeats his claim: Sandy agrees: There is no logic in: trying alteration; seeing that it doesn't work; deciding at that point not to destroy the film; retaining a film which contradicts the lone-nut story; and finally making that film available for public viewing. If you have control over a piece of physical evidence which seriously undermines your case, and the only way to be sure that this evidence would not become public is to destroy it, and if it is a simple task to destroy that piece of evidence, you would destroy it. Wouldn't you? Nor is it logical, in the hypothetical scenario I put forward (let's imagine that the film contained evidence of conspiracy that really could not be explained away), to do anything other than destroy the film. This would absolutely eliminate any possibility that the film could contradict the lone-nut story. The only cost would be public embarrassment. If Life (or whoever) understood that the film contained evidence that contradicted the lone-nut story, why would they not have destroyed the film? Please answer the question this time. Claim 5 - The car's turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street was deleted from the film because the shooting had already started by then. What evidence is there that the first shot was fired before or during the car's left turn? Paul supplies a newspaper report which claims that "the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston" and another report which claims that "As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway ... At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper ... fired his cheap rifle." But Paul's two newspaper reports are from five days after the assassination, and were clearly ill-informed and speculative. Denise, on the other hand, claims that the first shot took place "just after the limousine had turned the corner onto Elm", presumably so close to the turn that deletion was required. How many spectators claimed that the shooting began that early? Why did hundreds of people who would have seen and heard it not report such a thing? Were they all bribed or blackmailed? Why did spectators along the first part of Elm Street report seeing JFK smiling and waving to the crowd, apparently uninjured? Why do images exist which corroborate these witnesses? The shooting did not start until the car had travelled some distance along Elm Street. That can't be the reason the car's left turn was deleted. What actual evidence is there that the car's left turn was deleted from the film? The claim that the left turn was deleted rests on Zapruder's statement that he didn't stop filming. But the evidence shows that he did stop filming. He, like all human beings, made a mistake when recollecting something. The left turn wasn't deleted. Zapruder simply stopped filming when he realised that JFK's car wasn't at the very front of the motorcade, and didn't start filming again until the car was on Elm Street. JB: Let's go through the various points that have been made: RO: I wish you had actually covered all of the important points. Instead you cherry pick the points you want to answer and ignore the rest. Which are often more important. JB: Claim 1 - The original Zapruder doesn't exist. Michael Crane writes: Quote I myself say,that there is no such thing as a Zapruder in camera original.It no longer exists. That thing is burned or at the bottom of an ocean or landfill. Notice the lack of evidence Michael produces to justify his assertion RO: If the original was altered, it was for the *purpose* of replacing the original!! The original would have been discarded. The evidence you are looking for is found in the claim of alteration!??!! JB: What we do have good evidence for is the claim that the original film does exist. It's in the National Archives. RO: Double WOW. There is a film at NARA and therefore it must be the original!!! I guess that settles it?/!! JB: Roland Zavada, in his reply to Douglas Horne, points out that if the Kodachrome film currently in the archives is a copy, it will contain certain features which are always generated by the process of copying one Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film. The copy will contain increased contrast, increased grain size, and colour distortion. According to Zavada and Prof. Raymond Fielding, who have examined that film, it contains none of these features. It has to be the original. Zavada was heavily involved in the creation of Kodachrome film when he worked for Kodak, and must know what he's talking about. Of course, we can't rule out the possibility that the lizard people got to him and made him an offer he couldn't refuse, or that the known laws of physics were miraculously suspended on the occasion Zavada inspected the film. But in the absence of any evidence that either of these things happened, the current state of play is that the Kodachrome film in the archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. Since the film in the archives is not a copy, all of the proposed alterations which required the film to have been copied, cannot have happened. Realistically, the only alteration that is still plausible is that the blob on the back of JFK's head was painted in. RO: Impeccable logic: Assert the film at NARA is the original and for that "reason" conclude it hasn't been altered. JB: If anyone wants to maintain that the blob was painted in, they should get hold of someone with the appropriate credentials, and inspect the film that is in the archives. Likewise, if anyone wants to claim that Zavada was mistaken and that the film is a copy, they should again get hold of an expert and inspect the film. Then let us know what the expert says. RO: You haven't noticed this has been done by film experts in California who concluded there were clumsy alterations? JB: Here's Zavada's reply to Horne. Please read it this time: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf RO: Your faith in Zapada to resolve all questions of authenticity is misplaced. You ignore the responses of not only Horne but others. For example, here is Jack White in 2010 at EF: "Zavada was a qualified expert on film manufacture and chemistry. HE WAS NOT AN EXPERT ON PHOTOGRAPHY NOR FILM CONTENT. He was hoodwinked into trying to be an expert on EVERYTHING, instead of a specialist. Compounding that error, his supporters mistakenly use his "findings" to support Z authenticity. All his study proved that the film was shot on Kodachrome, which was not in dispute." Claim 2 - Brugioni's 30-year-old or 40-year-old recollections were accurate. JB: Repeating the scenario which requires Brugioni's recollections to be accurate, does not support the claim that those recollections were accurate. Zavada's objections to Brugioni's claims still stand. It is an uncontroversial fact that people get stuff wrong when recalling events from decades earlier. RO: I asked if you claim Brugioni was lying about what happened with the film at NPIC, at least the parts he knew about, as well as what he saw when he watched the film. You sidestepped that question to assert a blanket response that "people get stuff wrong". Well, what did he get wrong? How about his recounting, which he repeated several times to Horne, that the head shot in the film he saw was quite different than now depicted in the extant Zapruder? It was more dramatic, the spray of bone and tissue was more white than pink, it shot higher in the air, and lasting longer. Specific enough? Or was he somehow mistaken that in the mid 70s he was ordered to destroy his boards, a copy of which he still had in his safe, when he let slip he still had a copy? Please specify, if you want to continue this line, while you explain what you think happened with the film that weekend: what was Brugioni mistaken about? Claim 3 - Life, or Time/Life, had links to the CIA. JB: I can't argue with that. But this demonstrates only that Life might have done what it did after consultation with the CIA. It's quite possible that the CIA prompted Life to do what actually happened: buy the film and keep it (more or less) locked away until 1975. RO: You think there was a "consultation" between the CIA and Life? Between equals? Life was fronting for the CIA and doing what they were told. Claim 4 - Life (or the CIA, or anyone else who controlled the film) would not have destroyed the film, because ... JB: Roger does not address the question I asked. He merely repeats his claim: Quote The killers had choices about how to deal with the problem of Zapruder contradicting their story. They logically (I've explained the logic) chose to first try alteration. When that failed, they chose to bury the film from public view until their Oswald story took hold. RO: Yes I did explain why destruction that weekend was not the best or logical choice. It was in my original post, which is why I simply alluded to it in the answer you quote ("I've explained the logic"). This was the weekend of the murder and the killers were faced with an initial decision about Zapruder because they knew it contradicted their story. Destroy or alter the film? The record of what happened to the film that weekend shows they prudently chose to first try altering the film, knowing they next could bury the film while their story took hold, if their alterations didn't do the job. The facts show (unless you want to now challenge them) that was exactly the sequence that happened that weekend. Try alteration. When that failed, go back to Zapruder and buy the full film rights in order to bury the film for what turned out to be 12 years. 60 years later, that plan has worked pretty well hasn't it? I asked for your alternative explanation of that sequence and you have offered none. Nor answered the questions I posed. If the film was not altered, why were two sets of boards made, and the first set, made before the trip to HW, later destroyed ? Why was the film sent to the Hawkeye Works lab if not to alter it? Why did Life/CIA lie to conceal that the film went directing to the CIA's NPIC in DC after they gained limited rights to it? Btw, the source for the making of the second set of boards was not Brugioni--he didn't know about that--but Homer McMahon and crew. McMahon told Horne that "Bill Smith" a "SS agent" told him he brought the film from Hawkeye Works. It was "Bill Smith" who, this time, directed which frames to enlarge, despite McMahon's disagreement. (McMahon thought that the film he was given showed evidence of shot(s) from the front and more than three of them). The work on the boards continued after McMahon left early Monday morning. Some of the frames McMahon worked on are missing from the extant boards and others were added later. Besides vaguely trashing Brugioni, you're going to have to find a way to discredit McMahon and crew. That is, if you get around to explaining your view of what happened with the film that weekend The point is, far from ending the problem posed by Zapruder, destroying it that first weekend or soon after would more likely have blown up in their face. The CIA was smart enough to realize that. As I said, Zapruder was on national TV the day of the murder explaining what his film showed, There was a high level bidding war between CBS and Life/CIA over rights to show the film, (or as it turned out in Life's case, to not show it). It was quickly being recognized as the film record of the murder. Everyone knew that Life had the rights to the film. Or if they didn't that weekend, they would soon find out in a few days when Life began publishing exclusive stills from the film. The initial decision about what to do with that film had to be made soon after the murder as the world was watching. So how do you imagine your destruction scenario was supposed to work? Who exactly would destroy the film in Life's possession? CD Jackson? Henry Luce? Who would be blamed when the world found out that the film they were waiting to see, that clearly showed the murder, was destroyed? Your "solution" would have solved nothing. Instead it would have created a massive problem amidst the uncertainty of the first few days. Evil, yes, but the CIA wasn't dumb enough to fail to see that. The preceding also serves to answer your illogical ramblings about logic below. JB: There is no logic in: trying alteration; seeing that it doesn't work; deciding at that point not to destroy the film; retaining a film which contradicts the lone-nut story; and finally making that film available for public viewing. If you have control over a piece of physical evidence which seriously undermines your case, and the only way to be sure that this evidence would not become public is to destroy it, and if it is a simple task to destroy that piece of evidence, you would destroy it. Wouldn't you? Nor is it logical, in the hypothetical scenario I put forward (let's imagine that the film contained evidence of conspiracy that really could not be explained away), to do anything other than destroy the film. This would absolutely eliminate any possibility that the film could contradict the lone-nut story. The only cost would be public embarrassment. If Life (or whoever) understood that the film contained evidence that contradicted the lone-nut story, why would they not have destroyed the film? Please answer the question this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now