David Boylan Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 As noted by John Newman in Where Angels Tread Lightly, the CIA had a copy of the Zapruder film as early as 1965 where it was shown to officers of the Office of Training. I wonder what the subject of that class was and what version of the film was shown. It was also viewed in 1969 by a training instructor. Alfonso Rodriguez was the Director of Training in 1975. He had an interesting resume working for William Harvey, Desmond Fitzgerald, Ted Shackley and was the case officer for Manuel Ray, Rogelio Cisneros and was assigned to the Special Operation branch for the autonomous operations project 1963-65. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9545#relPageId=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gayle Nix Jackson Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 I wish James Richards was still on here David and Hi!!! He told me years ago, the Nix film was also shown to FBI, CIA and Secret Service training classes. I could never verify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Boylan Posted March 8 Author Share Posted March 8 Hey Gayle! I don't doubt that the Nix film was shown to other agencies. I also miss James' contributions here. He was/is a wealth of knowledge. He was kind enough to share a bit of that with me over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 Clint Hill wrote in one of his books (i cant remember which one) that the Zapruder film was shown as a training video to the Secret Service years later. Hill attended these training sessions, i think as a speaker of some sort, and recounted how odd it was to see himself running on screen towards the limo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamey Flanagan Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 1 hour ago, Gayle Nix Jackson said: I wish James Richards was still on here David and Hi!!! He told me years ago, the Nix film was also shown to FBI, CIA and Secret Service training classes. I could never verify. I know your father believed that frames were taken out of his film, and at least initially he bought their excuse about bad exposures and such as the reason. Did he come to later believe that there were more nefarious reasons? I believe that somewhere there is an original film that your father took that day unaltered. Besides excising frames here and there, I also believe that they fooled with the contrast to make it darker so we couldn't see what was going on up on the knoll behind the fence. I believe the original would show more visibility up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 53 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said: Besides excising frames here and there, I also believe that they fooled with the contrast to make it darker so we couldn't see what was going on up on the knoll behind the fence. I believe the original would show more visibility up there. According to a Discovery channel documentary some years ago, in which i think Gary Mack was talking about it, the type of film Nix used was indoor film by accident which made the knoll dark. And if he had installed outdoor film instead, the knoll would be much brighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamey Flanagan Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 1 minute ago, Gerry Down said: According to a Discovery channel documentary some years ago, in which i think Gary Mack was talking about it, the type of film Nix used was indoor film by accident which made the knoll dark. And if he had installed outdoor film instead, the knoll would be much brighter. Yeah, that's what they said in that particular documentary. And that may be the case but I don't buy it completely. It would be a nice experiment for someone to do using the same type or even a similar type camera using both indoor and outdoor film to see just how much difference there is between the two. It's just that when the government lies to you over and over again you learn not to trust anything they tell you. I believe in that same documentary, they make a big deal about how Zapruder actually used the right type of film for outdoor photography. Yet the Zapruder film we saw for decades wasn't all that clear. I know we were dealing with copies (whether you assume the extant is the original or not) and each copy gets more degraded, but if you believe Dino Brugioni and his story then the original was very clear! And very different, lol! Even if using the wrong type film made the background a little darker, I still believe that the lighting on it was tampered with even more. Like I said, when they lie to you as much as they have you definitely acquire trust issues with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 Frame on the right side shot with B/H 414: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamey Flanagan Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 15 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said: Frame on the right side shot with B/H 414: Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 You know, rarely mentioned anymore is that Zapruder said he filmed steadily from the time he saw the Presidential limo on Houston Street, to when it vanished from view. My family had an old-fashioned 8 millimeter camera from Sears & Roebuck, which I think was actually made by Bell & Howell, the maker of Zapruder's camera. Those cameras made a whirring sound when in operation, and you felt a mild vibration through the handle. Did Zapruder actually start filming, then stop filming and then start filming, unaware of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 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