The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Pete Mellor]

11 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

can you recommend some good books on the history of the Z film?  Or books that contain interesting information about it in a chapter or so.

Jean, Vol IV of Horne's 'Inside the A.R.R.B.'  Worth having Vols i to V anyway.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

And isn't the scenario complicated even further by the fact Life damaged the "original" and the copies remain undamaged?

I mean, wouldn't that mean they damaged a copy, and that the current SS copy and FBI copies ere copies of that copy before it got damaged ?

 Yes. There doesn't appear to be any sort of credible scenario in which a copy was altered to make a fake 'original', then three copies were made from that fake, and finally the fake 'original' was carefully 'damaged'.

I'd be interested to see if anyone can in fact come up with such a scenario, and whether there is any documentary evidence to support it. We're still waiting for documentary evidence to support Roger's scenario.

Quote

If memory serves, McMahon was unclear what day he studied the film.

One thing McMahon was clear about was that he was a recovering alcoholic and drug addict with some form of dementia. See McMahon's ARRB interview with Horne, reproduced at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15387-arrb-interview-homer-mcmahon/?do=findComment&comment=181453:

Quote

I don't know how the mind works, but I do know I am not.... I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a ....wet frame is? Well, you're looking at one. I damn near died. And I'm not a competent witness because I don't have accurate recall. I don't have absolute recall ... I just told you, I don't have a full deck. I don't know how I am presenting anything here. This is not…at the time I did it I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So whether you are talking to a reliable witness or not, that's up for you to decide.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Greg Doudna writes:

Quote

If Zapruder’s personal copy from the original still exists today and that copy’s creation and existence precedes the Hawkeye New York business involving another copy, then the answer to my question is “yes”, it can be excluded

Sorry, I was in a hurry when I scribbled my earlier reply to Greg; I just wanted to convey the huge range of things that would need to be done to create a faked 'original' from either the actual film or one of the first-day copies.

The copy which Zapruder retained on the evening of the 22nd, and which he sold to Stolley, ended up in Life's offices in New York. Wrone writes (p.35) that "sometime on Sunday in New York City, Life's publisher C. D. Jackson viewed with horror the images on the newly arrived film." Wrone cites video interviews with Stolley (which I haven't seen) for this information. Anyway, this "newly arrived film" can only be the first-day copy which Zapruder retained and then sold to Stolley on the Saturday morning. It was presumably sent to Chicago along with the original on the Saturday, and was sent from there to New York, arriving on the Sunday.

To answer Greg's question, the first-day copy which Zapruder retained appears to have been in New York at the same time as a different film was being examined at NPIC after perhaps having been processed at Hawkeye Works. So Zapruder's copy cannot have been used to make an altered version of the film.

One thing I got wrong in my earlier reply was about the revised version of Life magazine going to press on Monday 25th. In fact, the edition of the magazine which contained frames from the film had gone to press earlier than that. It first appeared in news-stands on the morning of Monday 25th (see Wrone, p.35, citing p.376 of the Wainwright book I mentioned earlier). So any alteration and substitution of the Zapruder film, whether of the original or a copy, must have been completed on the Sunday.

In short, there's no chance that a Kodachrome film could have been altered at Hawkeye Works on the Sunday, and then examined at NPIC on the Sunday, and then flown to Chicago on the Sunday, and frames printed from it on the Sunday, and the magazine laid out on the Sunday, and the magazine going to press on the Sunday. And no-one at Life noticed that this sequence of events was contradicted by the story that the original film arrived on the Saturday afternoon and was damaged that evening.

Anyone who claims the film was altered needs to come up with a scenario which takes account of the facts for which we have documentary evidence, and support their scenario with properly documented evidence rather than speculation based on 30-year-old recollections, which is all we've seen so far.

[Chris Davidson]

On 6/13/2024 at 2:06 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

and because the damage to the original film was done in Chicago that evening

 I didn't know the WC was formed before the film was damaged.

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 6/12/2024 at 2:21 PM, Jean Ceulemans said:

Ps : know any good book(s) on the history of the Zapruder film ? Or books that contain a nice part about it? Or articles / essays?  There is so much out there, it´s a bit of a struggle finding the good bits..., especially the more up to date.

1) Read John Costello’s articles at https://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/ Be aware that when he says that “most of the film is authentic,” what he is really saying is that beyond the proofs that he gives of INauthenticity, he can’t prove fakery—which is not quite the same thing, if you follow what I’m trying to say.

2) Read the book The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Yes, I know that James Fetzer was discredited for his Sandy Hook book, Hoax is actually written by very credible contributors who have NOT been discredited.

3) Doug Horne’s article “2 NPIC Events” found on various sites, including https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

4) My own article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/zapruder-film-alteration.html . I need to go back and put jump links into it and embed videos if I can, like Linda Willis describing how at least one of her father’s pictures were “physically altered” because “something showed in it that the SS did not want known.” But the article pulls together some of the various information regarding S-film alteration and adds some of my own observations.

Several other members have suggested some resources that look very interesting that I will be checking out myself.

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

1) Read John Costello’s articles at https://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/ Be aware that when he says that “most of the film is authentic,” what he is really saying is that beyond the proofs that he gives of INauthenticity, he can’t prove fakery—which is not quite the same thing, if you follow what I’m trying to say.

2) Read the book The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Yes, I know that James Fetzer was discredited for his Sandy Hook book, Hoax is actually written by very credible contributors who have NOT been discredited.

3) Doug Horne’s article “2 NPIC Events” found on various sites, including https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

4) My own article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/zapruder-film-alteration.html . I need to go back and put jump links into it and embed videos if I can, like Linda Willis describing how at least one of her father’s pictures were “physically altered” because “something showed in it that the SS did not want known.” But the article pulls together some of the various information regarding S-film alteration and adds some of my own observations.

Several other members have suggested some resources that look very interesting that I will be checking out myself.

 

I hope you realize that the Z-film hoax thing really got rolling by Jack White, and James Fetzer, both of whom are largely discredited. I felt friendly towards Jack, but he was not reliable, IMO, and made statements on this forum indicating he thought the greatest hoax of all was evolution, and that Barack Obama was a puppet of David Rockefeller, etc. 

Costella was also a member of this forum for a moment, if I recall. And I met him once. And he stressed that the film was either entirely fake or entirely real, if I recall. I think he believed the sprocket hole images proved the film was not a mish-mash of a number of films, as some had taken to claiming, and had not been extensively edited, as some had taken to claiming. 

As for myself, the only alteration to the film that would make any sense, IMO, would be the blackening of the back of the head. I am open-minded that such a thing could have occurred, but think the timeline makes this unlikely.

 

Edited June 14 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Greg Doudna writes:

Sorry, I was in a hurry when I scribbled my earlier reply to Greg; I just wanted to convey the huge range of things that would need to be done to create a faked 'original' from either the actual film or one of the first-day copies.

The copy which Zapruder retained on the evening of the 22nd, and which he sold to Stolley, ended up in Life's offices in New York. Wrone writes (p.35) that "sometime on Sunday in New York City, Life's publisher C. D. Jackson viewed with horror the images on the newly arrived film." Wrone cites video interviews with Stolley (which I haven't seen) for this information. Anyway, this "newly arrived film" can only be the first-day copy which Zapruder retained and then sold to Stolley on the Saturday morning. It was presumably sent to Chicago along with the original on the Saturday, and was sent from there to New York, arriving on the Sunday.

To answer Greg's question, the first-day copy which Zapruder retained appears to have been in New York at the same time as a different film was being examined at NPIC after perhaps having been processed at Hawkeye Works. So Zapruder's copy cannot have been used to make an altered version of the film.

One thing I got wrong in my earlier reply was about the revised version of Life magazine going to press on Monday 25th. In fact, the edition of the magazine which contained frames from the film had gone to press earlier than that. It first appeared in news-stands on the morning of Monday 25th (see Wrone, p.35, citing p.376 of the Wainwright book I mentioned earlier). So any alteration and substitution of the Zapruder film, whether of the original or a copy, must have been completed on the Sunday.

In short, there's no chance that a Kodachrome film could have been altered at Hawkeye Works on the Sunday, and then examined at NPIC on the Sunday, and then flown to Chicago on the Sunday, and frames printed from it on the Sunday, and the magazine laid out on the Sunday, and the magazine going to press on the Sunday. And no-one at Life noticed that this sequence of events was contradicted by the story that the original film arrived on the Saturday afternoon and was damaged that evening.

Anyone who claims the film was altered needs to come up with a scenario which takes account of the facts for which we have documentary evidence, and support their scenario with properly documented evidence rather than speculation based on 30-year-old recollections, which is all we've seen so far.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But I thought Zapruder made three copies of the original, and gave two to the Secret Service. And that the Secret Service then gave one to the FBI, which in turn made copies that were sent back to Dallas. 

He then sold the original to Life. It was my understanding he held onto the third copy and that this copy remained in the hands of his family, and that this copy is identical in content to the copy of the SS copy Groden was able to obtain. 

Is this correct? And, if so, do we know the current whereabouts of his personal copy? Is this discussed in his grand-daugher's book? 

[Jonathan Cohen]

4 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

1) Read John Costello’s articles at https://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/ Be aware that when he says that “most of the film is authentic,” what he is really saying is that beyond the proofs that he gives of INauthenticity, he can’t prove fakery—which is not quite the same thing, if you follow what I’m trying to say.

2) Read the book The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Yes, I know that James Fetzer was discredited for his Sandy Hook book, Hoax is actually written by very credible contributors who have NOT been discredited.

3) Doug Horne’s article “2 NPIC Events” found on various sites, including https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

4) My own article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/zapruder-film-alteration.html . I need to go back and put jump links into it and embed videos if I can, like Linda Willis describing how at least one of her father’s pictures were “physically altered” because “something showed in it that the SS did not want known.” But the article pulls together some of the various information regarding S-film alteration and adds some of my own observations.

Firstly, his name is John Costella, not Costello. And "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" is full of absolute and utter nonsense, including Costella and Jack White implying they were being "tracked" by rain sensors in Dealey Plaza when they went to take measurements. Surely this is not what passes for scholarship in the JFK research community? The arguments presented here about the film not going "full flesh left" have also been heartily debunked.

That said, there is a surprisingly informative piece in the book by David Lifton called "Pig on a Leash," detailing the borderline illegal lengths to which he went to get access to the Zapruder film in the 1960s and a host of other seemingly unscrupulous actions by Robert Groden involving original or first-generation photo evidence.

[Pat Speer]

33 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Firstly, his name is John Costella, not Costello. And "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" is full of absolute and utter nonsense, including Costella and Jack White implying they were being "tracked" by rain sensors in Dealey Plaza when they went to take measurements. Surely this is not what passes for scholarship in the JFK research community? The arguments presented here about the film not going "full flesh left" have also been heartily debunked.

That said, there is a surprisingly informative piece in the book by David Lifton called "Pig on a Leash," detailing the borderline illegal lengths to which he went to get access to the Zapruder film in the 1960s and a host of other seemingly unscrupulous actions by Robert Groden involving original or first-generation photo evidence.

I agree. Pig on a Leash is by far the best part of the book. Now, it may come as news to some that a war between Fetzer and Lifton exploded on this forum when Lifton denounced Judy Baker, and Fetzer started flirting with Jews did 9-11 nonsense. As I recall, it was the latter that Lifton couldn't stomach, and he said so, to which Fetzer responded by (essentially) calling Lifton a (member of the tribe, so to speak). In any event the two then argued about money, and I was the referee. Now, it turned out Fetzer had promised Lifton a percentage of the profits--which only makes sense, as he wrote almost half TGZFH and had written a best-seller in the past. But Fetzer had paid him zip...bupkus...not a cent. Fetzer insisted, moreover, that he'd never received any money from the publisher--which seems unlikely unless the deal had been structured where he'd received an advance, and the book had not sold enough for the publisher to recoup the advance. 

In any event, Fetzer then started to harass Lifton because Lifton never repaid HIM for an appearance Lifton had made to promote the book. Fetzer had paid for Lifton's flight and stay at a hotel, and Lifton had never repaid him. To me, that was insane. My background was in the record industry, and the idea that the producer of a compilation album would go back and try to get an individual artist to repay him for promotional expenses--not from royalties, but out of pocket--was sickening. 

And that wasn't even to address the elephant in the room--that Fetzer was attacking Lifton because he wouldn't buy into the Jews did it 9/11 theory, and had then added onto that that Lifton was a greedy (member of the tribe) who refused to pay back his debts. I felt like I was watching something from a newsreel from the 30's. 

And I don't think I was alone. I think the whole forum breathed a sigh of relief when Fetzer stormed off. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Firstly, his name is John Costella, not Costello

My “bad.” I was posting quickly and I constantly have to check my spelling, which I didn’t do in the post. I did spell it correctly on my website, however. Sorry for the error.

[Denise Hazelwood]

Also, I did point out that Fetzer was discredited for his Sandy Hook nonsense (and paid a price for it), but the contributors who wrote the actual articles were the discredited—David Lifton, David Mantik, John Costella, and others.

[Vince Palamara]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I

As for myself, the only alteration to the film that would make any sense, IMO, would be the blackening of the back of the head. I am open-minded that such a thing could have occurred, but think the timeline makes this unlikely.

 

Hi, Pat! I agree with your take on the Z film, but I am wondering something: why would anyone blacken the back of the head if, as you believe, there was no wound there?

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Vince Palamara said:

Hi, Pat! I agree with your take on the Z film, but I am wondering something: why would anyone blacken the back of the head if, as you believe, there was no wound there?

I don't think there was. But I can conceive of someone altering the film to hide such a thing. The frequent claim the large explosion and gaping hole were painted onto the film makes no sense to me, because the size and extent of the wound is at odds with the single-assassin theory.

FMJ bullets do not enter small and then explode the top of the head into the sky. They just don't. 

Edited June 15 by Pat Speer

[Roger Odisio]

On 6/13/2024 at 5:06 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Documentary evidence does, however, exist which contradicts Roger's claims about what happened to the original film and the three copies. Let's look at each claim:

Correct, though not in the way Roger thinks. The plane in question was heading to Life magazine's photo lab in Chicago, not the CIA's photo lab in Washington. We can be sure that the plane was heading to Chicago because the film was examined in Life's photo lab in Chicago that afternoon, and because the damage to the original film was done in Chicago that evening (see, for example, Loudon Wainwright, Life: Great American Magazine, Knopf, 1986, pp.357-376).

False. It wasn't the CIA who "left Dallas with the original film they had just bought", but Richard Stolley of Life magazine. Whether Stolley himself couriered the film to Chicago is unclear, but it was Stolley who bought the film (and one copy) and was responsible for sending them to his employers in Chicago. In his article for Esquire magazine ('What Happened Next', Esquire, 1 Nov 1973: https://classic.esquire.com/what-happened-next/), Stolley wrote: "I picked up the original of the film and the one remaining copy and sneaked out a back door of the [i.e. Zapruder's] building."

False. When he sold the film to Life on the Saturday morning, Zapruder no longer possessed three copies. He and his business partner Erwin Schwartz had handed over two copies to the Secret Service in Dallas the previous evening.

We have documentary evidence for this: a hand-written memo by the Secret Service agent they dealt with, Max Phillips, dated 9.55pm. The version of the memo in Commission Document 87, page 66 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=49) is almost illegible, but there is a partial transcript of the original in David Wrone's The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003), pp.27-28: "Enclosed is an 8mm movie film taken by Mr A Zapruder ... Mr Zapruder is in custody of the 'master' film ... [Zapruder gave] two prints to SAIC Sorrels, this date."

Phillips attached his memo to one of those copies, which he sent on a flight to Washington. That copy must have arrived in Washington very early on the Saturday morning, several hours before Zapruder sold the original and the remaining copy to Stolley.

So ... we have good evidence that one Zapruder film, which can only have been the original, arrived in Chicago on the Saturday afternoon, and that another Zapruder film, which can only have been the first Secret Service copy, arrived in Washington on the Saturday morning.

We also have good evidence that one Zapruder film was worked on at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington on the Saturday. Until documentary evidence is presented to support Roger's claims, the only realistic conclusion is that the film at NPIC on the Saturday was the Secret Service copy which Max Phillips sent to Washington late on the Friday evening.

Why is that copy the prime candidate for the film that was worked on at NPIC? Three reasons come to mind. Firstly, the Secret Service big-wigs must have wanted to examine the film which they had asked their colleagues in Dallas to send to them urgently. Secondly, if we assume that the Secret Service did not possess its own specialist photographic interpretation facility, it is reasonable to assume also that they would ask to borrow the services of a fellow agency. Thirdly, it was Secret Service agents who brought the film into the NPIC; Secret Service agents who examined the prints that were made; and Secret Service agents who took the film away afterwards.

One question remains. What was the film that was worked on at NPIC on the Sunday, after perhaps having been processed at the Kodak plant in Rochester, NY? This film can't have been the original, which had already been processed in Dallas and damaged in Chicago. It must have been one of the two remaining copies, or a copy of one of those two copies. The most plausible candidate is the second of the two Secret Service copies, the one which remained in Dallas overnight on the Friday.

Two FBI memos on the Saturday allow us to work out what happened to that second Secret Service copy. A memo from DeLoach to Mohr (NARA RIF 124-10012-10183) asks for a copy of the Zapruder film to be sent to FBI HQ. A memo from Shanklin to FBI HQ (NARA RIF 124-10017-10033) asks the FBI lab to make three copies of the film, "one for Bureau use and two to be returned to the Dallas office by the most expeditious means possible."

On the Saturday afternoon, the FBI borrowed the Secret Service's other copy, which had remained in Dallas, and flew it to Washington with instructions for the FBI's lab to make copies of the copy. The FBI's lab lacked the equipment to do so, but copies were made, either at the Kodak plant in Rochester on the Sunday or by an outside contractor on the Monday, or perhaps both (for a full account of the FBI's use of the remaining Secret Service first-day copy, with documentary sources cited, see Wrone, op. cit., pp.29-31). If a version of the Zapruder film was in fact processed at the Kodak plant that weekend, the only candidate for which documentary evidence exists is a copy of this Secret Service copy. The film that was examined at NPIC on the Sunday must have been either this first-day copy, or a copy of this copy.

As things stand, the existing documentary evidence suggests very strongly that the film which was at NPIC on the Saturday was not the original but the Secret Service copy which had been flown to Washington, arriving very early that morning. The existing documentary evidence also suggests that if a version of the Zapruder film was processed at Hawkeye Works, it would have been a copy of the other Secret Service copy, which was borrowed by the FBI and flown to Washington later on the Saturday.

If, as the existing documentary evidence indicates, the film which turned up at NPIC on the Saturday was not the original film but a copy, the case for alteration collapses. There appears to be no other scenario in which the original film could have been altered before numerous copies, and copies of copies, had been made and widely distributed.

 The biggest flaw in your argument, Jeremy, is that you think my contention that the CIA was running the bid for the film through CD Jackson at Life magazine can be rebutted by citing "documentary evidence" that shows that Life was acting on its own.  Life was  just an ordinary news org chasing a buck when it won the bid in your view. 

 

Plus you find no tangible evidence that shows the CIA was directing, or even involved, in the process, except for allowing the SS to use its labs, including HW that no one else knew even existed, to do whatever you think was done at those labs. (It's not credible to think the CIA would have allowed another agency to use its secret HW lab in a way that could reveal its existence, while keeping even the name of the place classified for almost 50 years after the murder).

 

As if after all these years you have no idea how the CIA works on a day to day basis.  As if the CIA's stonewalling and ultimately blocking both official investigations into the murder tells you nothing about their desire to to cover up, rather than find out, who killed their boss, JFK.  You think if the CIA was running the bid and directing what was done with the film, available documents would reveal that, if you searched hard enough. My mind is boggling.

 

Before we go on, let's get the basic facts of the deal Life had with Zapruder straight.  Life bought limited rights to the *original* film, not including copies, and a representative left with it to go somewhere. Zapruder originally had three additional copies. One of them was earmarked to give to Life a few days later in exchange for  Life returning the original to him. 

 

The briefing boards Brugioni did late Saturday night were targeted for the director of the CIA and the SS.  That, with copies of the film at some point from Zapruder, would give each agency their own copy of both the films and the boards that were done at the NPIC. The briefing boards were the key to understanding the film.  That's why they were called briefing boards.

 

Your whole story begins to unravel, however, when you examine the history of Life's actions until they returned the film they had to Zapruder in 1975. That history belies your story about their purpose in buying the film. You say they were acting on their own, solely in their business interests, to bring the news to the public and make a buck doing it. They used the film to publish some selected stills in some issues of their magazines and sold a few more issues.  I said publishing those stills were designed to convince the public they had seen everything about the murder without seeing the actual film. It's now clear, Life had no intention of allowing anyone to see the film. An early clue as to Life's role.

 

Showing the film to the public was the best way to reveal what actually happened, as well as Life's best, perhaps its only, way  to reap real profits on such a large investment they had made.  Concealing the film's evidence was what the killers wanted, but why did Life ultimately do that?

 

CBS also bid for the film rights.  Apparently their headquarters capped their bid at $10,000.  Life's $50,000 initial bid blew them out of the water, and the eventual price of $150,000 was 15 times more than CBS was willing to pay. The second deal raising the price was after the first  briefing boards clearly showed what the film had captured. One of those bidders had access to virtually unlimited funds and it wasn't CBS.

 

But suppose CBS had won the bid for the rights to the original film. They didn't have a magazine to divert attention from the film by publishing some selected stills. They would have been planning to show the film, probably that weekend in a show hosted by Walter Cronkite. for the scoop of the century.  To show the world clear evidence of what happened. That would have blown the Oswald story.  Ponder how that would have changed things compared to what Life did with the film.

 

Who didn't want that film to be seen?  That's right, the killers.  They knew they had to do everything possible to prevent the public from seeing the original film, particularly that first weekend when their Oswald story was just getting off the ground and Oswald, for part of that weekend, was still alive to contradict it.

 

You don't try to claim that LIFE was part of the  gang that planned the murder and whose neck was on the line.  Quite the opposite.  In your story, they were just a business  unconnected to anyone else, with seemingly unlimited funds ($150,000 was a lot of money in those days), who won the bid, but for some reason was singularly uninterested in either a return on their investment or showing the film to the public. Their actions just happened to coincide with what the killers wanted.

 

It is with this incoherent and incomplete story that you base your claim the film was never altered.

 

How do we know your story is accurate?  Your answer is that's what the "documentary evidence" left behind that you have collated for us shows. My mind is still boggling.

 

Let's go back to look at the details of the bid Saturday morning. Yes, Richard Stolley did the bidding representing Life, no doubt with instructions from CD Jackson, running Life at the time. What were those instructions, besides win the bid and don't worry about what it costs?  There is no document that shows Jackson's plan, and we shouldn't believe it if it did exist. Need I mention Jackson was a long time CIA asset?

 

You admit it's not clear whether Stolley accompanied the original film on the plane to wherever its destination actually was. So how much did he know at the time about the purpose of winning the bid?  II's quite possible he was told nothing about that.  He had no need to know. 

 

It's clear someone, said to be representing Life, left that Saturday with the original film.   Whom did he represent, what was his purpose and where did he go? Alas, again there are no reliable documents that tell us that. That's why the original story that the film was quickly flown to Chicago so Life could start working on it was essentially unquestioned for decades (as far as I know).  Until the briefing boards story broke almost 50 years later. We have to figure that out based on what we do know.

 

One thing is clear.  If it was the CIA taking the film to its NPIC lab, there would  be no documents to verify that.

 

Offering your story that Life was, on its own bidding for the rights to the original film and sent that on Saturday to Chicago, has at least one benefit to you.  It allows you to avoid all the discordant questions that we have learned to ask about what was done with the film at the two CIA labs. 

 

The film was taken there by SS agents, you say.  It was just a copy.  Furthermore, you contend the CIA was willing  to let the SS use its secret HW lab and risk its existence being exposed by raising questions about what was done there.  That's not credible.

 

The basis for your claim that it was the SS who twice delivered the film to NPIC is the word of the two messengers themselves.  I'm Bill Smith from the SS the person told Homer McMahon. 

 

Actually there's more to that episode. McMahon claimed it was "Smith" who decided what frames of the film to use for the second board, not him.  Unlike what Brugioni did on the first set, whose purpose was to clarify what the film showed.

 

MacMahon said he thought there were shots from more than one direction.  But Smith ignored his suggestions. Whoever Smith was working for was involved in the coverup.  If you believe Smith was really from the SS,  you've got them embroiled in the coverup. 

 

I concluded early on it was CIA itself who directed what went on that weekend at its own labs.  To claim it was someone like the SS (no conspirators they!) doesn't wash.  Unless you want to claim the CIA and SS as one, were working together on the murder, in which case the question of which one delivered the film wouldn't matter.

 

Before the pasting of enlarged prints of the key frames on to the board was finished at NPIC early Sunday morning, the film was sent off the the secret HW lab .  It was clear by then what the film showed.  Quick action was needed (by the killers!) to deal with that evidence.

 

Your initial answer to the question of alteration, Jeremy, was to suggest that the killers would not have tried it because they would have preferred to just destroy the film.  But by altering key elements, they *did* destroy the original film. It no longer exists. Which left them with a fake they could pass off as the original.  Obviously that was a better option than to be left with nothing, when the whole world was learning of the film's existence and what it could show about the murder.. 

 

There are many questions your scenario allows you to avoid but that require answers based on things we now know.. Why was the HW lab secret?  What was done there?  You don't say apparently because your scenario does not lead you there.  You have no documents to give you the answer. The purpose of what was done at HW surely was not to do further study on the Z film, as has been suggested. What the film showed was already clear from Brugioni's work, and a second set of boards was done after the film was returned to NPIC.

 

No, they must have been doing something else at HW.  Are you curious what that was? And why the name HW was itself classified until 2010, making it difficult, if not impossible for years, to even find out the film was sent there.  Why did whoever took the film to HW want to prevent us from finding out about it?

 

Why was a second set of boards done at NPIC if the same unaltered film was used to do them as was used to do the first set?  The first set was made by Brugioni, the CIA's preeminent photo analyst.

 

Why was Brugioni's first set of boards destroyed later when he revealed he still had a copy in his safe, if his boards didn't contradict the second set ?  If no alteration was done at HW after he did the first set?

 

After whatever was done at HW, why did Life go back to Zapruder and pay him another $100,000 for the full rights to the original film, instead of exchanging it for a copy as the original deal required?  Did Life now see an opportunity to make more money to justify the extra money it was going to pay Zapruder?? 

 

No. They refused all requests to show the film publicly and locked it away for 12 years.  There must be some reason for Life to strike another deal with Zapruder.  Do you know what it was?  Why did Life never show the film?

 

On a side note it has been suggested that the fact the extant film can still be used to contradict the Oswald story proves that alteration was never tried. You can see the logical fallacy here, can't you? Failure to alter the film sufficiently to meet their purpose is *not* proof it wasn't tried. It just means the alteration didn't succeed.

 

If Life was acting on its own as a profit maximizing news organization, why did they give the film back to Zapruderin 1975 for $1?  After their job of hiding the film was ended when a bootleg copy was shown on TV.

 

Are you getting the picture? Virtually nothing Life did corroborates your story they were acting on their own, in their own self interest.

 

Your story about Life's role doesn't hold water and doesn't address many of the questions about the process that need answers. And looking for documents that would implicate the CIA in the story and basing your conclusion in part on not finding them, is, as I said to Tom, a fool's errand.

 

A final word to establish context. Imagine yourself as one of the killers. Your top priority in accomplishing the murder is that JFK not escape the hit.  So you plan multiple shots from different directions to maximize your chances.

 

But in your coverup, you plan to blame Oswald as the lone shooter from behind.  This glaring discrepancy causes you to have to plan for how to deal with several problems.  To murder Oswald before he can talk to a lawyer.  To snatch the body from Parkland and take it back to DC where the autopsy can be controlled.  To create an official body that can be relied on to find Oswald guilty.  

 

Then, on the afternoon of the murder, you hear about this Zapruder guy on TV talking about how he had captured the murder with his camera.  Standing right across from the fatal head shots. Plans were quickly developing for a media bidding war the next morning for the rights to show the film to the public.

 

Would you do nothing?  Of course not.  You would find a way to win that bid so you could keep the film from the public instead of showing it.  And to alter it when you got a chance, which it turns out was your only viable long term option.

[Jean Ceulemans]

Let´s allow for all of this to sink in a bit.

Now, I had a question (while awaiting the ordered books to arrive), did Mrs. Kennedy ever say something about the film, and/or some of the explicit photo´s ? About showing them to the public or not ?

Could the family have tried to secure them ?

Just wondering, because especially in those days at first it would be considered a no go to play/publish that stuff. Could this have played a role in preventing for years the film to be shown? Even today some explicit pictures will not be published without a consent of e.g. the  family, President or not.

Unless there is a different look at all of this in the USA vs. EU?