Sydney Wilkinson's 6k Copy of NARA's "Forensic Version" of the Zapruder Film

[Douglas Caddy]

 

[Micah Mileto]

In glorious 1080p

[Ron Bulman]

Douglas, why did you remove it?  I'd be very interested in seeing this.

[Micah Mileto]

I'd be very interested in a google drive link to the uncompressed image files

[Douglas Caddy]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Douglas, why did you remove it?  I'd be very interested in seeing this.

I had no part in its removal.

[Douglas Caddy]

7 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Delete

Edited February 23 by Douglas Caddy

[Douglas Caddy]

The video was posted on Facebook, which is where I found it. Apparently, the poster on Facebook exercised his/her rightful power to make it unavailable. The video showed the actual assassination of JFK in detail never seen before. 

[Keven Hofeling]

29 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

The video was posted on Facebook, which is where I found it. Apparently, the poster on Facebook exercised his/her rightful power to make it unavailable. The video showed the actual assassination of JFK in detail never seen before. 

I apologize. I had posted it on YouTube and on Facebook several days ago, but was today contacted by Thom Whitehead and Sydney Wilkinson -- the owners of the physical 6k scanned film which is a copy of the Forensic Version of the Zapruder film purchased from NARA -- and asked to take it down for fear of embroiling them in litigation with the Sixth Floor Museum (which in my honest opinion is a CIA front) which owns all the Zapruder film rights by Deed of Gift from the Zapruder family.

The following is a link to a post in another thread that contains a great deal of information about Wilkinson and Whitehead's film, including some stills from the film and some links to others, as well as some information about the role the Sixth Floor Museum has played in delaying the release of the documentary (which is entitled "Alteration"): https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/?do=findComment&comment=528713

 

[Ron Bulman]

Thank you sir.  That explains a lot possibly.  I've read of Ms. Wilkinsons evaluation of the high-resolution frames she obtained. And those of several others in her profession she conferred with.  Through my limited reading of Doug Horne and associates.  

Dr's Mantick and Chesser, independently I believe, went to the National Archives to observe the x-ray's and photographs with modern technology, the first and only ones to do so.

Ms., Wilkinson and company may well have the best expertise in the field to evaluate the film given their combined work in the industry.  From what I've read.

Yet their work is still denied to us, the people.

 

[Aaron Sharpe]

I'm extremely interested in seeing this. @Keven Hofeling you may choose not to answer this, which is understandable, but if you posted it, where did you get it? 

I think I posted some queries about this in another thread some time ago, but I'm wondering what the holdup is in Whitehead and Wilkinson releasing their film. Do you think the Sixth Floor is trying to obstruct? Are they able to do that? 

[Paul Brancato]

16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thank you sir.  That explains a lot possibly.  I've read of Ms. Wilkinsons evaluation of the high-resolution frames she obtained. And those of several others in her profession she conferred with.  Through my limited reading of Doug Horne and associates.  

Dr's Mantick and Chesser, independently I believe, went to the National Archives to observe the x-ray's and photographs with modern technology, the first and only ones to do so.

Ms., Wilkinson and company may well have the best expertise in the field to evaluate the film given their combined work in the industry.  From what I've read.

Yet their work is still denied to us, the people.

 

Exactly 

[Denise Hazelwood]

Since there is a discussion of copyright issues related to the "forensic" version of the Z-film, let me share an excerpt from my book The JFK Cut-N-Paste Assassination regarding copyright issues specific to the Z-film. The same arguments I use regarding copyright of the Z-film images presented in my book also apply to this site: The Education Forum.

 

One would think that using assassination-related materials would not be a problem. After all, in 1999, the Assassination Records Review Board decided that the U.S. government should own all footage related to the Kennedy assassination. To that end, the Justice Department paid the Zapruder family $ 16 million for the film, under the auspices of eminent domain:

The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act was enacted by the Congress and signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 1992. The law states, "All government records concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should carry a presumption of immediate disclosure."[ ix]

Unbelievably, in either a SNAFU or a deliberate maneuver to limit access to the film, our government somehow managed to not obtain the copyright for the film when purchasing the film.

Our tax dollars, hard at work.

The Zapruder family gave the “original” film (which the government bought??) and the copyright for it to the Dallas Sixth Floor Museum (AKA, the old Texas School Book Depository), which per my conversation with another author charges $ 1,000 per frame. My own e-mails to the Sixth Floor Museum to inquire about copyright, the use of film images, and the availability of high-resolution versions of the Bronson film and Towner film have gone unanswered.

As an official “assassination-related material,” the film (and all other assassination-related materials) should be housed at the National Archives and be available for disclosure. “The law mandates that all assassination-related materials be house in a single collection in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).”[ x]

However, as it turns, out, I have an “out” (or two or three) for using the Zapruder film images and other assassination images:”

October 10: James Lesar and Chip Selby file suit against Henry Zapruder, Washington tax attorney, for selling rights to the film. Argued there should be no copyright claim on such an historic film, allowing the copyright holder to dictate its use, hampering use by scholars & writers. Zapruder said the family only charges people who use the film for commercial purposes: “we make the film available free of charge to anyone who is not going to use it for commercial purposes… People who are going to charge, we charge.” The original film is in storage at the National Archives. (Associated Press) Gerald (Chip) Selby Jr., 26, represented by Jim Lesar, sues Henry Zapruder and LMH Co.; LMH charges $ 30,000 for use of the film; Selby’s documentary, “Reasonable Doubt,” his master’s thesis, was made in collaboration with Harold Weisberg; the Discovery Channel offered $ 10,000 to show the documentary; the fee is excessive; Zapruder says he offers the film free to those who aren’t going to charge for it; copyright was abandoned by failure to curb unauthorized use of the film. (Houston Chronicle)[ xi]

So copyright for the Zapruder film “was abandoned.” Good to know.

There’s also a loophole in copyright law itself: the “Fair Use” clause of the Copyright Act of 1976. The law “permits limited use of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. Typical fair uses of a copyrighted work are for purposes such as criticism, commentary, scholarship, and parody.”[ xii]

Criticism, commentary, and scholarship. Check, check, and check. Parody is not applicable—at least, not intentionally.

Continuing: “Notwithstanding the provisions of §106 and §106( a), the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”[ xiii]

Criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Check, check, check, check, check, and check.

There’s more of the law in my favor. As it turns out, “even if a copyright holder can establish that a defendant infringed their copyright, if the defendant can show its use of the protected work is permitted under the fair use provision of the copyright act, the defendant will not be liable for copyright infringement. To help determine if a specific use of copyrighted material is permitted as a fair use, Congress has implemented a four-factor test in 17 U.S.C. § 107 to weigh the equity–fairness–of the use.”[ xiv]

There are four factors to be considered in determining whether a case constitutes “fair use.” These are:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.[ xv]

My responses to these are below:

1. My work is definitely educational in nature. Naturally, I would love to acquire some grocery money and enough for some “little extras,” so there is a bit of commercialism involved. But I’m not embarking on a huge business venture here. Just my own self-published observations of evidence of cover-up and alterations in film and photographic evidence of the Kennedy assassination, and my offering of a new theory that explains it all. And if my wildest fantasy comes true and this book becomes a national best seller, well, then, I’ll be able to afford an attorney to deal with all the legal niceties.
2. The nature of my work herein is to share my observations, commentaries, critiques, and research. This is a non-fiction work, based on supposed factual evidentiary materials in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I do include observations of certain other researchers, and have tried to document those sources as best I can. Most of the information I found is available at no cost on the Internet. However, many observations are my own, and are unique.
3. I use the amount of evidence from the various assassination films and photographs that I need to support my theories of the assassination. Critics can argue whether I’ve used too much, or not enough. In my own opinion, of course, I’ve used just the right amount. My intention is not to re-produce the films, but to prove my theories. Ideally, some of the points I make would be better shown in video format, but the limitations of a book format make that impossible.

It’s been more than 50 years after the Kennedy assassination. I can’t imagine my work having any negative effect on the market or value of any copyrighted works discussed herein, especially when most of the images I use can be found for free on-line. In fact, if anything, it might spur some purchases of the MPI version of the Zapruder film Images of an Assassination and copyrighted books such as The Great Zapruder Film Hoax and others, in order for my readers to verify the information I present. The Towner film, as far as I have been able to determine, is not available commercially except the NFV version of Robert Groden’s JFK: Assassination Films. Groden apparently worked for the company that reproduced the films for the HSCA, and covertly copied them.[ xvi] He has an online site to sell the films.[ xvii] (I tried to purchase a DVD, but eventually had to file a PayPal grievance, since it never arrived. I won the grievance and was later reimbursed through PayPal, which is why I was limited to the YouTube version of the Tina Towner and Marie Muchmore films.)

Nor should Ms. Towner lose any money from my work presented here. If anything, my work might spur interest in her book. Her film, of course, is not available for purchase except through Robert Groden[ xviii].

Josiah Thompson won his case against Life magazine, then the holder of the copyright for the Zapruder film, based on the “Fair Use” clause in copyright law:

There is a public interest in having the fullest information available on the murder of President Kennedy. Thompson did serious work on the subject and has a theory entitled to public consideration. While doubtless the theory could be explained with [other non-infringing representations], the explanation actually made in the Book with copies is easier to understand. The Book is not bought because it contained the Zapruder Pictures; the Book is bought because of the theory of Thompson and its explanation, supported by Zapruder pictures.[ xix]”

— The JFK Cut-N-Paste Assassination by Denise Hazelwood

[Douglas Caddy]

3 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Since there is a discussion of copyright issues related to the "forensic" version of the Z-film, let me share an excerpt from my book The JFK Cut-N-Paste Assassination regarding copyright issues specific to the Z-film. The same arguments I use regarding copyright of the Z-film images presented in my book also apply to this site: The Education Forum.

 

One would think that using assassination-related materials would not be a problem. After all, in 1999, the Assassination Records Review Board decided that the U.S. government should own all footage related to the Kennedy assassination. To that end, the Justice Department paid the Zapruder family $ 16 million for the film, under the auspices of eminent domain:

The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act was enacted by the Congress and signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 1992. The law states, "All government records concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should carry a presumption of immediate disclosure."[ ix]

Unbelievably, in either a SNAFU or a deliberate maneuver to limit access to the film, our government somehow managed to not obtain the copyright for the film when purchasing the film.

Our tax dollars, hard at work.

The Zapruder family gave the “original” film (which the government bought??) and the copyright for it to the Dallas Sixth Floor Museum (AKA, the old Texas School Book Depository), which per my conversation with another author charges $ 1,000 per frame. My own e-mails to the Sixth Floor Museum to inquire about copyright, the use of film images, and the availability of high-resolution versions of the Bronson film and Towner film have gone unanswered.

As an official “assassination-related material,” the film (and all other assassination-related materials) should be housed at the National Archives and be available for disclosure. “The law mandates that all assassination-related materials be house in a single collection in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).”[ x]

However, as it turns, out, I have an “out” (or two or three) for using the Zapruder film images and other assassination images:”

October 10: James Lesar and Chip Selby file suit against Henry Zapruder, Washington tax attorney, for selling rights to the film. Argued there should be no copyright claim on such an historic film, allowing the copyright holder to dictate its use, hampering use by scholars & writers. Zapruder said the family only charges people who use the film for commercial purposes: “we make the film available free of charge to anyone who is not going to use it for commercial purposes… People who are going to charge, we charge.” The original film is in storage at the National Archives. (Associated Press) Gerald (Chip) Selby Jr., 26, represented by Jim Lesar, sues Henry Zapruder and LMH Co.; LMH charges $ 30,000 for use of the film; Selby’s documentary, “Reasonable Doubt,” his master’s thesis, was made in collaboration with Harold Weisberg; the Discovery Channel offered $ 10,000 to show the documentary; the fee is excessive; Zapruder says he offers the film free to those who aren’t going to charge for it; copyright was abandoned by failure to curb unauthorized use of the film. (Houston Chronicle)[ xi]

So copyright for the Zapruder film “was abandoned.” Good to know.

There’s also a loophole in copyright law itself: the “Fair Use” clause of the Copyright Act of 1976. The law “permits limited use of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. Typical fair uses of a copyrighted work are for purposes such as criticism, commentary, scholarship, and parody.”[ xii]

Criticism, commentary, and scholarship. Check, check, and check. Parody is not applicable—at least, not intentionally.

Continuing: “Notwithstanding the provisions of §106 and §106( a), the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”[ xiii]

Criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Check, check, check, check, check, and check.

There’s more of the law in my favor. As it turns out, “even if a copyright holder can establish that a defendant infringed their copyright, if the defendant can show its use of the protected work is permitted under the fair use provision of the copyright act, the defendant will not be liable for copyright infringement. To help determine if a specific use of copyrighted material is permitted as a fair use, Congress has implemented a four-factor test in 17 U.S.C. § 107 to weigh the equity–fairness–of the use.”[ xiv]

There are four factors to be considered in determining whether a case constitutes “fair use.” These are:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.[ xv]

My responses to these are below:

1. My work is definitely educational in nature. Naturally, I would love to acquire some grocery money and enough for some “little extras,” so there is a bit of commercialism involved. But I’m not embarking on a huge business venture here. Just my own self-published observations of evidence of cover-up and alterations in film and photographic evidence of the Kennedy assassination, and my offering of a new theory that explains it all. And if my wildest fantasy comes true and this book becomes a national best seller, well, then, I’ll be able to afford an attorney to deal with all the legal niceties.
2. The nature of my work herein is to share my observations, commentaries, critiques, and research. This is a non-fiction work, based on supposed factual evidentiary materials in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I do include observations of certain other researchers, and have tried to document those sources as best I can. Most of the information I found is available at no cost on the Internet. However, many observations are my own, and are unique.
3. I use the amount of evidence from the various assassination films and photographs that I need to support my theories of the assassination. Critics can argue whether I’ve used too much, or not enough. In my own opinion, of course, I’ve used just the right amount. My intention is not to re-produce the films, but to prove my theories. Ideally, some of the points I make would be better shown in video format, but the limitations of a book format make that impossible.

It’s been more than 50 years after the Kennedy assassination. I can’t imagine my work having any negative effect on the market or value of any copyrighted works discussed herein, especially when most of the images I use can be found for free on-line. In fact, if anything, it might spur some purchases of the MPI version of the Zapruder film Images of an Assassination and copyrighted books such as The Great Zapruder Film Hoax and others, in order for my readers to verify the information I present. The Towner film, as far as I have been able to determine, is not available commercially except the NFV version of Robert Groden’s JFK: Assassination Films. Groden apparently worked for the company that reproduced the films for the HSCA, and covertly copied them.[ xvi] He has an online site to sell the films.[ xvii] (I tried to purchase a DVD, but eventually had to file a PayPal grievance, since it never arrived. I won the grievance and was later reimbursed through PayPal, which is why I was limited to the YouTube version of the Tina Towner and Marie Muchmore films.)

Nor should Ms. Towner lose any money from my work presented here. If anything, my work might spur interest in her book. Her film, of course, is not available for purchase except through Robert Groden[ xviii].

Josiah Thompson won his case against Life magazine, then the holder of the copyright for the Zapruder film, based on the “Fair Use” clause in copyright law:

There is a public interest in having the fullest information available on the murder of President Kennedy. Thompson did serious work on the subject and has a theory entitled to public consideration. While doubtless the theory could be explained with [other non-infringing representations], the explanation actually made in the Book with copies is easier to understand. The Book is not bought because it contained the Zapruder Pictures; the Book is bought because of the theory of Thompson and its explanation, supported by Zapruder pictures.[ xix]”

— The JFK Cut-N-Paste Assassination by Denise Hazelwood

Thank you, Denise, for this incisive background report. It would seem to me that The New York Times or Washington Post would deem this controversial matter to be worthy of an Indepth researched article that would settle the whole matter. Your report could serve as a starting point for such an article. Let's hope this happens.

[Matt Allison]

Wasn't there a documentary in the works about the work Wilkinson did on the Z film?

[Keven Hofeling]

Dino Brugioni Commenting on Z-313 and Z-317 -- Heretofore Unseen Footage From Doug Horne Interview

https://youtu.be/VpwldcYcAv4?si=YzBT-339A7FCVbA3

 

'NEW, "Director's Cut" of French Zapruder Film Documentary "L'image 313" Now Up on YouTube!'

insidethearrb | November 22nd, 2023 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/21743.html

insidethearrb

November 22nd, 2023

Greetings, on this sad 60th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

America experienced a coup d'etat in 1963; the galactic center of the plot was in the Pentagon, and those angry men, the true power and impetus behind the conspiracy, were aided and abetted by willing handmaidens in the CIA (and some private sector individuals, one of them a former government official). Kennedy was murdered by his enemies---plural. The causes were his refusal to bomb and invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his subsequent attempts to end the Cold War---which included not only detente with the USSR, but withdrawal from Vietnam by 1965, and his secret attempts in the fall of 1963 to pursue a rapprochement with Castro's Cuba.

I am proud to announce that the NEW, Second Edit, or "Director's Cut," if you will, of the French documentary released back on October 18th, is now UP on YouTube.

HERE IS THE LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZed8cNAu10

There are almost 8 minutes of new material added to this interesting documentary, directed by Yannick Rolandeau, and edited by his collaborator, Theo Bonaccio.

For those of you who have not read my original posting about this film, I will simply say that it is about the Zapruder film's diverted chain of custody the weekend following JFK's assassination---and what happened to the film during its diversion on Saturday evening, 11/23, from Chicago to the CIA in Washington D.C.; then on to Kodak Headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. on Sunday morning, 11/24, where the film was modified using visual special effects, and edited; then back to the CIA in Washington, D.C. late on Sunday night, 11/24.

The new material added to this "Director's Cut" of L'image 313 is of two types:

-good images of some of the high resolution Hollywood scans of the Zapruder film (digitally scanned at both 2K and 6K resolution), clearly showing evidence of alteration; and

-new video footage, that the world has not yet publicly seen, of the world's foremost imagery analyst, NPIC's Dino Brugioni, as he views some of the Hollywood scans, and as he views the Zapruder film as a motion picture for the first time since he saw the unaltered film on November 23, 1963.

I highly encourage all of you to watch this new, improved version of Yannick Rolandeau's film.

We can honor the 35th President not only by studying his policies and actions during his administration---understanding the key decisions he made and their context---but we can also honor him by not succumbing to the continuing lies told about his assassination, and by uncovering different elements of the U.S. government coverup. This French documentary is an important new part of that effort. END

Edited May 8 by Keven Hofeling