The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Roger Odisio]

On 6/18/2024 at 4:39 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

Nothing much "happened at the two CIA labs". Some people turned up, looked at one of the first-day copies of the Zapruder film, and went home again. No big deal.

It's possible, as Tom Gram points out, that nothing at all "happened at the two CIA labs" on the weekend of the assassination, and that the examination of a copy of the Zapruder film occurred in December.

 

 

You say nothing important happened that weekend with the film at either the NPIC or HW. Some unidentified people simply wandered by and then went home. A truly, umm, remarkable claim given all that we know.

 

That leads you to posit Brugioni was lying when he said he did briefing boards at NPIC from the film Saturday night, that were destroyed a decade later when he revealed he still had a copy of them. The destruction allows you to claim there is no documentary evidence Brugioni is telling the truth!!  Case closed.

 

At one point you also said Brugioni might have been mistaken about what he did and when he did  it. Have you watched the interviews with Horne?.  Do you know anything about Brugioni or his career? Absent something further, I'll just chalk your assertion up to mindless innuendo you want to believe.

 

That Sunday, while I and others claim the film was at HW, Life went back to Zapruder and offered another $100,000 for the full rights to the film.  The total price Life paid of $150,000 is equivalent to about $1.5 million today.

 

It's clear Life's purpose was not to show the film to the public, but the opposite. To bury it for as along as they could get away with, which turned out to almost 12 years. They hoped showing selected stills from the film in their magazine would be enough to convince the public they had seen what actually happened.

 

Who decided to do that and why?

 

"Bill Smith, from the SS" told McMahon that Sunday that he was bringing the film for Rochester. If true, that means the decision to go back to Zapruder was made by CIA personnel, since they were the only ones who knew HW existed at the Kodak plant in Rochester. 

 

It also seems certain that at the same time the decision was made to destroy Brugioni's boards that he had sent to the CIA director, and I think the SS. A second set of boards was going to be made.

 

Let me be clear about the second set. McMahon himself said work on the boards continued after he left NPIC Sunday night.  He said the extant boards Horne showed him were different than the ones he had worked on.  There was a different number of frames on them.  Some of the frames he had done were missing, and some frames he had not worked were included.

 

This does not open the way for your speculation that perhaps the first briefing board wasn't even done until December.  Who would that briefing be for?  The WC was established also one week after the murder, and was already in charge of the investigation.   Do you think the boards were done for them?  Is there any evidence for that claim?  Anything in the WC record?

 

The purposes for doing both sets was different.  Brugioni did his boards so that officials could clearly see what happened.  To be able to deal with it.  That was clear by the time the second set was done. The second set was intended to replace the first set for the historical record using the (altered) film back from HW,  There was no particular rush to finish them as there was with the first set.  

 

This does not open the way for your claim that perhaps the first briefing board wasn't even done until December.  Who would that briefing have been for?  The WC was established also one week after the murder, and was already in charge of the investigation.   Do you think the boards were done for them?  Is there any evidence for that claim?  Anything in the WC record?

 

Even a rudimentary understanding of the situation that weekend tells us that briefing boards had to have been done, and quickly, so that officials could clearly see what actually happened. This is true whether those officials were an innocent party trying to get to the bottom of a situation rife with uncertainty. Or one of the bad guys working out coverup plans.  The strip of film they had is not enough for that.  They are called briefing boards for a reason.

 

You take your claims a step further by asserting that even if anything was done with the film at the labs, a copy was used, not the original, and therefore it doesn't matter. Until now, that allowed you to dodge the questions about what was done at the two CIA labs. Considering the answers you now offer about that, you should have kept dodging.

 

If you were the top officials awaiting a briefing after the murder, what film would you want to be used for the boards:  the original or a copy?  The first issue of Life carrying the stills didn't hit the streets until one week after the murder. There was no competition for the use of the original film that first weekend between Life and the officials awaiting a briefing.  Even if there were, who do suppose would have priority to the use of the original film?  National security, Mr. Jackson, national security (if you believe Life publisher CD Jackson wasn't already doing the CIA's bidding.).

 

You have continuously claimed that Life left that Saturday with both the original and a copy. That wasn't the deal. Life bought limited rights to the original film and left with it.  Zapruder kept one of his three copies to exchange with Life when they returned the original to him a few days later after making the stills.  The other two copies were distributed that weekend to government agencies.

 

I mention all of this without repeating a major contention I have made before.  Any fair reading of Life's actions from winning the initial bid, to changing the terms of the original deal with Zapruder after the film had been worked on at both the NPIC and HW, so it could hide the film from the public for 12 years, indicates Life was not simply acting in their corporate business interests.

 

In the second part of your note you discuss the important discrepancy I have emphasized between the killers' Oswald story and what actually happened. Your description of the discrepancy is essentially correct. I assume you accept that JFK was killed by multiple shooters from more than one direction. Correct?  And therefore it's important to understand the problem the discrepancy caused the killers in fashioning a coverup to save their skin.

 

But your discussion of that is a tangled mess. I'm going to avoid rebutting each thing you say and instead jump to your final incoherent whopper: "Choosing Oswald as the lone gunman patsy would have negated the need to cover up evidence that JFK was actually killed by multiple shooters?" What?

 

You got to that sentence by posing this false choice:

 

"Roger's "the CIA" could:

 

• choose Oswald as a patsy (in order to implicate the Cuban or Soviet regimes);
• or decide to alter the Zapruder film"

Do you, or the reader, really need me to explain what's wrong with this claim?  There are two things. The killers did *not* choose Oswald as the patsy in order to implicate the Soviets and Cubans.  Some of the folks who wanted Kennedy dead did want it for that reason.  But Lyndon Johnson, who would be the new president charged with carrying that out, wanted no part of what would have been a disaster. The only question is whether Johnson made that known to the other planners before or after the murder. Not only was that not the reason for choosing Oswald, that part of the plan, if it had ever had serious support among the planners, was dropped. 

 

Second, the killers did not make a choice between blaming Oswald *or* altering or burying the film. Have you not paid attention to anything I said?  The killers decided to alter and then bury the Z film *because * it contradicted their Oswald story.

 

Let me close with this. The discrepancy between the Oswald story and what actually happened caused the killers to take several actions to cover up their crime.

 

They had to kill Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer. How do you suppose they decided to murder Oswald to keep him quiet, a drastic step, but did nothing about the Z film that showed he couldn't have done it like their story claimed?

 

They had to snatch the body from Dr. Rose at Parkland so they could control the autopsy at Bethesda. They broke the law doing that, but that was just another indication of the power the killers had.

 

They had to create an official commission they could trust to find Oswald guilty. 

 

And, yes, they had to try to alter the Z film which had rapidly become known as clear evidence of what happened.  

 

Do you agree with or accept that the first three things were done and why? But not Z film alteration? Does that make sense to you in that context?

 

The point is Z film alteration was not some incident that can be understood in isolation. It must have been considered along with the other challenges the killers faced in running their coverup. In other words, if the killers did the first three actions  why they would not, and did not, do the alteration?  One mistake was enough to trip them up.

[Keven Hofeling]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I thought it was pretty obvious, but the left hand column on the Life magazine page with “print #” and “frame #” lists the exact same print numbers and frame numbers, split into the exact same four sections as the page with “print #” and “frame #” listing the four panels prepared by McMahon and Hunter. It also has the exact same brackets around prints [7, 8], [13, 14], [17-20], and [21-25]

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=11

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=9

I've figured out why we were not on the same page on that. It was literally because we were not on the same page.

The NARA file I used to take a screenshot of the LIFE computations NPIC sheet was apparently scanned through an automatic feeder, resulting in the outer left-hand side of the page (with the brackets) being omitted from the scan:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10336-10024.pdf

The version you were using from the Mary Ferrell Foundation site, conversely, is complete as far as I can tell:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=11

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I thought it was pretty obvious, but the left hand column on the Life magazine page with “print #” and “frame #” lists the exact same print numbers and frame numbers, split into the exact same four sections as the page with “print #” and “frame #” listing the four panels prepared by McMahon and Hunter. It also has the exact same brackets around prints [7, 8], [13, 14], [17-20], and [21-25]

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=11

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=9

What I see when comparing the two NPIC sheets below, which you have referenced, is that the panel computations on the second sheet (which both Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter told the ARRB they did recognize) is reproduced almost identically in the far-left column of the LIFE computations sheet (which both Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter told the ARRB that they did not recognize):

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=11

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=9

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

So the Life page is referencing the same four briefing boards prepared by McMahon’s team. This is not conclusive on its own, but does suggest that the board preparation and timing analysis were part of a single event at NPIC.

Or perhaps the LIFE 18 FPS computations were not made in conjunction with briefing boards, and were limited to the comparative timing analysis itself?

And would you please kindly specify the precise basis and rationale for your belief which suggests to you that the Zapruder film activities of McMahon and Hunter should be conflated with the LIFE computation sheets which both men specifically disclaimed having any knowledge of?

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Both McMahon and Hunter said they had nothing to do with the preparation of the actual briefing boards. They only prepared the prints, so stated more accurately, the Life page is referencing the exact same set of prints, in the exact same order and grouping indicated by McMahon’s team. 

What is so different between what you are describing and simply stating that McMahon and Hunter's timing analysis data was imported verbatim to the left column of the LIFE computations sheet to serve as a point of reference/comparison for the 18 FPS timing analysis?

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

There is additional evidence on those two pages suggesting a common origin. Note on the Life page the column titled “Seconds 18 FPS”. The frame numbers from seconds 0-11 are indicated in intervals of 18 frames.

Now look at the page prepared by Hunter and McMahon. There is not a dedicated column, but if you look closely, certain frame numbers are indicated with a numbered circle. The right side of the page is cut off on MFF, and some of the frames are illegible, but the frames are clearly increasing in 16 frame intervals, with 188 (print 1) as the zero point > 204 (1) > 220 (2) > 236 (3), etc. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=9

The bottom of the page also has the time between frames 224, 256, and 312 calculated at 16fps. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the point you seem to be making here is that there are calculations in intervals of 18 FPS associated with the LIFE computation sheets (which McMahon and Hunter indicated they had never seen before), and that there are calculations in intervals of 16 FPS associated with the sheets that McMahon and Hunter did recognize?

Well isn't that the whole point of the Paul Mandel 12/6/1963 LIFE article? That wherein it had been previously believed that Zapruder's camera operated at 16 FPS per its specifications , Mandel's article revealed that it actually operated faster at 18 FPS?

As elucidated by Doug Horne at page 1208 of his Inside the Records Review Board, the significance of the timing analysis in relation to the 12/6/1963 Paul Mandel LIFE article is as follows:

Furthermore, at the only point in Homer McMahon's ARRB interview that 16 FPS was mentioned, McMahon concluded by saying "[t]his might have been a further analysis":

From page 20 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

https://dickatlee.com/issues/assassinations/jfk/homer_mcmahon_transcript_reformat.pdf

Gunn (28:57): Do you remember when you prepared the notes that we just examined?
McMahon: Yeah, we were in a briefing room, ah, in building 213 in the Navy Yard. And, it was --- we were viewing it there because of the equipment.
Gunn: So they --- these were made on the day then that you --- [were] processing ---
McMahon: Yes, this is when we --- these are fairly accurate timing shots --- tim -- -the way that, that it, that we timed it. The 16 frames per second --- I, I don't know whether I agree on the 18 --- it might have been 18 frames per second. This might have been a further analysis. [Emphasis not in original]

And Ben Hunter also opined that the LIFE computation sheets must have been produced during an NPIC session subsequent to his own:

From page 3 of the Meeting Report of the 6/17/1997 in-person interview of Ben Hunter:

      -He did not recognize any of the other pages in the NPIC working notes, nor did he think that such activity (e.g., 3 different shot scenarios, and calculation of seconds between shots at two different camera speeds) took place during the night he and Mr. McMahon performed their work. He was of the belief that the activity described in the NPIC working notes occurred during a second event at NPIC, one which occurred after the work done by he and Mr. McMahon. [Emphasis not in original]

Now if you could prove that Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter had anything to do with any of the 18 FPS computations, that would certainly be significant in the context of this discussion, but you have not done so yet.

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

On the other page mentioning Life magazine, it says in the top left corner:

18fps - “2 frames faster than it should have been run”. 

This quote is a presumably a quote from Life magazine. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=7

On the last page not recognized by Hunter and McMahon, it shows that a timing analysis was performed at both 16 and 18 frames per second: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=8

The 16fps section also shows the same 5.5s calculation between frames 224, 256, and 312 as the bottom of the McMahon panel page. 

A reasonable conclusion from this is that the quote from Life “2 frames faster than it should have been” was part of the impetus for the two different FPS timing studies. The frame numbers for the 16fps analysis were indicated on the McMahon/Hunter panel page, and a dedicated page was made to compare the 16fps analysis to the 18fps Life Magazine analysis.

All of these notes associated with the LIFE computation sheets you have just described were disclaimed by Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, right?

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Also, on the page with the longhand timing calculations and print estimate recognized by McMahon, there are calculations for 18fps: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=10

In other words, the two pages identified by Hunter and McMahon contain timing calculations at both 16 and 18fps. 

So which is more likely: 1) The were two different timing analyses, each using both 18fps and 16fps as the film speed and the exact same set of briefing boards; or 2)  The briefing boards and timing analysis notes were part of a single event at NPIC? 

I agree that if Hunter McMahon and/or Ben Hunter had firmly identified the mathematical calculations (as follows) that it would have been significant:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=10

However, although McMahon did initially identify the mathematical computations in question as his own, upon further reflection, be backed away from that identification and said more tentatively, "no," that it was either his own or Hunter's writing, followed by Horne saying that he would show McMahon a sample of Hunter's writing for comparison, but then they moved on to discussion of other matters and did not return to it. Thus, this is not as conclusive as you suggest, particularly in light of the fact that McMahon and Hunter disclaimed having any knowledge of all of the other sheets associated with the LIFE computations sheet and the 18 FPS analysis.

From page 19 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

https://dickatlee.com/issues/assassinations/jfk/homer_mcmahon_transcript_reformat.pdf

Horne: Below that, there are some --- that's in pencil /meaning the time duration for the creation of internegatives and prints discussed above] --- below that there are some blue ink, ah, long divisions and additions.
McMahon: This is my writing.
Horne: And those [the arithmetic calculations in blue ink] are also your writing?
McMahon: Yeah.
Horne: Also the pencil?
McMahon: Yes.
Horne: OK, could you explain what that --- well, what are the long divisions and additions, do you recall what those are?
McMahon: [Sighing] Idiot marks --- I don't know what they --- it's my writing, I think.
Horne: OK
McMahon: No, wait --- wait a minute --- I think it's my --- it's either mine or Ben's.
Horne: OK
McMahon: And, have you got Ben's handwriting?
Horne: I, I can show you one section on these notes that he recalled was his handwriting, ah, if you'd like, and then I can ask you that ---

Thus, with the following, you have presented me with a false choice, because you haven't demonstrated that McMahon and Hunter performed a 18 FPS comparative analysis:

Quote

So which is more likely: 1) The were two different timing analyses, each using both 18fps and 16fps as the film speed and the exact same set of briefing boards; or 2)  The briefing boards and timing analysis notes were part of a single event at NPIC?

 An equally valid, and perhaps even superior option, is that Hunter McMahon and Ben Hunter performed their NPIC analysis exactly when they said they did, the day before the President's funeral (Sunday, November 24, 1963), and that the timing analysis based upon the 12/6/1963 Paul Mandel LIFE article was conducted by an entirely different team, days, months, or maybe even years later.

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

It is possible that the alleged second team had access to McMahon’s notes, and wrote some of their calculations on top of them, or that McMahon misidentified some his own handwriting, but I kinda doubt it.

And precisely why do you doubt such a possibility, Mr. Gram? What can you tell me about the document handling procedures of the NPIC and the CIA in support of said doubt?

Edited June 19 by Keven Hofeling

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

Peter Dale Scott's "Phase 1 / Phase 2" theory explains the need for the above actions. ... the CIA plotters used the Mexico City trip to make it appear that Oswald had contracted with the Cubans and Russians to kill Kennedy ... its purpose being to create a pretext for war with either Cuba or Russia. ... The CIA also created an alternative scenario where Oswald acted on his own and had nothing to do with Cuba and Russia. PDS calls this Phase 2. The purpose of Phase 2 was to provide a ready-made suspect just in case something went wrong with Phase 1.

Sandy's account doesn't reflect that of Scott, who sees the 'Phase 2' story as a built-in consequence of the 'Phase 1' story, rather than a back-up plan in case the 'Phase 1' story didn't work out.

Nor does Scott pin the blame solely on that poorly defined entity, "the CIA". Here are some passages from Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, University of California Press, 1993:

Quote

If there was a pre-arranged conspiracy to present a phase-one falsehood ("Castro did it") in order to justify the phase-two falsehood ("Oswald acted alone"), these men -- "D" [Gilberto Alvarado], Phillips, Win Scott, Angleton, Sullivan, Hoover -- seem the logical candidates for its co-ordination. (p.124)

Quote

I myself believe that some individuals in scattered parts of the federal government either contributed to the conspiracy, or at a minimum were knowledgeable of it and contributed wittingly to a cover-up of the crime.  (p.297)

Quote

To the notion that the political system killed Kennedy, I propose a more capacious alternative formulation: the President was murdered by a coalition of forces inside and outside government, of the type described in this book. (p.299)

In his book, Scott does not endorse the notion that the Zapruder film was altered in order to promote the 'Phase 2' story. Although he mentions that "C. D. Jackson [was] a veteran of CIA propaganda activities with Allen Dulles" (p.117), he points out that Jackson's role in the cover-up was to buy the rights to the Zapruder film and Marina Oswald's story, and to keep the film largely away from public view. Scott writes that Jackson "allegedly stopped Life's presses to alter the selection of frames of the President's fatal head-snap" (p.55); the implication is that no alteration of the film either took place or was necessary.

Of course, it was not necessary to alter the film in order to impose a 'Phase 2' interpretation. All that was needed was to keep it largely away from public view until the immediate fuss had died down, which is exactly what happened. Altering the film provides an extra level of complication that adds nothing of value.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

At one point you also said Brugioni might have been mistaken about what he did and when he did  it.

Correct. He was recalling events from more than 30 years earlier.

Roger's convoluted and unnecessary scenario depends ultimately on recollections from more than 30 years after the event. Let go, Roger! Once you admit that people can get stuff wrong when recalling events from decades earlier, the whole flimsy structure collapses.

Quote

You have continuously claimed that Life left that Saturday with both the original and a copy. That wasn't the deal. Life bought limited rights to the original film and left with it.  Zapruder kept one of his three copies to exchange with Life when they returned the original to him a few days later after making the stills.

Roger's account is incorrect. Not only has Roger cited no evidence that Zapruder retained the third of the first-day copies, but there is documentary evidence that he gave it to Richard Stolley on the Saturday morning. I cited this evidence earlier, but here it is again for Roger's benefit:

• Stolley's account in Esquire (https://classic.esquire.com/what-happened-next/ ) : "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."
• Zapruder's contract with Life, dated Monday 25th: "You [C. D. Jackson] acknowledge receipt through your agent [Stolley, on the 23rd] of the original and one (1) copy thereof,"

A minor digression: The issue of Life magazine which contained frames from the Zapruder film appeared on the news-stands on the Monday morning. The printing of this issue must have begun on the Sunday. The film must have been examined and had frames copied no later than the Sunday, and possibly on the Saturday, depending on how long these processes took. All of this happened in Chicago. I'm curious how these uncontroversial facts are consistent with the notion that the original, unaltered film was examined 600 miles away at NPIC in Washington DC on the Saturday and an altered version was examined there on the Sunday, especially given Roger's claim (unsupported by any documentary evidence) that Stolley took only the original film with him. In Roger's scenario, the original was in DC being examined and altered; one copy was in DC with the Secret Service; one copy was in Dallas with the Secret Service; and one copy was in Dallas with Zapruder. So which version of the Zapruder film did Life use?

Quote

Any fair reading of Life's actions from winning the initial bid, to changing the terms of the original deal with Zapruder after the film had been worked on at both the NPIC and HW, so it could hide the film from the public for 12 years, indicates Life was not simply acting in their corporate business interests.

It was in Life's business interests to acquire the film in the first place, and it was in the interests of the political establishment, of which Life and its owners were part, for Life to keep the film largely away from public view until the immediate fuss had died down. There is no need to add the extra complication of altering the film.

Quote

The killers did *not* choose Oswald as the patsy in order to implicate the Soviets and Cubans.

Roger can argue about that with Sandy (see above). I pointed out why choosing Oswald as a patsy inevitably implicated the Cuban or Soviet regimes in the assassination. Perhaps Roger didn't read that part of the comment to which he is replying.

Quote

They had to kill Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer. How do you suppose they decided to murder Oswald to keep him quiet, a drastic step, but did nothing about the Z film that showed he couldn't have done it like their story claimed?

Again, Roger is basing his speculation on unsupported assumptions. In this instance, it's that the people behind the assassination (a) had Oswald killed, and (b) had control of the Zapruder film. Even if assumption (b) is correct, Roger's question (why did the killers do "nothing about the Z film that showed he couldn't have done it like their story claimed?") isn't valid. Something was done about the Zapruder film. It was largely kept away from public view for over a decade. As I keep pointing out, there was no need to alter it.

Quote

And, yes, they had to try to alter the Z film which had rapidly become known as clear evidence of what happened.

And, no, they didn't need to alter the film. Keeping it away from the public is all that was needed.

A question for Roger: Do you think it is possible that someone could be mistaken when recalling details of an event which took place more than 30 years earlier?

Edited June 20 by Jeremy Bojczuk

[Chris Scally]

On June 11, Roger Odisio wrote (on page 17 of this topic) in response to a post by Tom Gram:

Quote

“The story we were told for decades was that Life then sent the film to their Chicago headquarters to begin preparation for showing some stills in their magazine a few days later.  That was a lie.” [emphasis added]

On June 16 (on page 23 of this topic), in response to a post from Jeremy Bojczuk, Roger Odisio wrote:

Quote

“All of your false claims that you know the original film went directly to Chicago once the deal with Zapruder was struck, and your diversions into which copy went where, can't absolve you from answering basic questions, including ones I have asked you, about what happened at the two CIA labs and why.” [emphasis added]

Strong words, and serious accusations, which I believe require clarification. I would therefore like to ask Roger the following questions, please:

1.   Have you personally carried out any research which establishes beyond doubt that the claim that the original Zapruder was sent to Life representatives in Chicago on the afternoon of Saturday, November 23, 1963 is a “false claim” and a deliberate untruth (i.e. “a lie”)?

2.   Have you any independent, corroborated and concrete evidence which establishes beyond doubt where (and how, and when) the original Zapruder film went after it left Zapruder’s office between 10 and 10:30 AM on that Saturday morning?   

Edited June 20 by Chris Scally

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy's account doesn't reflect that of [Peter Dale ] Scott, ...

 

My info comes from Deep Politics III, year 2000. Jeremy gets his info from the Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, year 1993. The two may differ.

 

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy's account doesn't reflect that of Scott, who sees the 'Phase 2' story as a built-in consequence of the 'Phase 1' story, rather than a back-up plan in case the 'Phase 1' story didn't work out.

 

Scott doesn't describe Phase Two of the plot as being a "consequence" of Phase One. He describes it as an alternative... one that would be chosen in the event that Phase One was rejected due to its potential for leading to nuclear war. From State Secret III:

 

Phase One put forward the phantom of an international plot, linking Oswald to the USSR, to Cuba, or to both countries together. This phantom was used to invoke the danger of a possible nuclear confrontation, which induced Chief Justice Earl Warren and other political notables to accept Phase Two, the equally false (but less dangerous) hypothesis that Oswald killed the President all by himself.

 

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In his book, Scott does not endorse the notion that the Zapruder film was altered in order to promote the 'Phase 2' story.

 

For the record, I never said that.

 

[David Josephs]

6 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

On June 11, Roger Odisio wrote (on page 17 of this topic) in response to a post by Tom Gram:

On June 16 (on page 23 of this topic), in response to a post from Jeremy Bojczuk, Roger Odisio wrote:

Strong words, and serious accusations, which I believe require clarification. I would therefore like to ask Roger the following questions, please:

1.   Have you personally carried out any research which establishes beyond doubt that the claim that the original Zapruder was sent to Life representatives in Chicago on the afternoon of Saturday, November 23, 1963 is a “false claim” and a deliberate untruth (i.e. “a lie”)?

2.   Have you any independent, corroborated and concrete evidence which establishes beyond doubt where (and how, and when) the original Zapruder film went after it left Zapruder’s office between 10 and 10:30 AM on that Saturday morning?   

Hi Chris...

Great respect for your work, so I have a few questions:

The film that Max Phillips sends to Rowley on the night of 11/22, arriving after midnight on the 23rd.... after the receipt of that film in DC, to SS Chief Rowley, where does it go from there?

Given the note below, a follow up question:  Zapruder had 2 copies, the "master" and "best 1st day copy".
2 given to Sorrels (1 to FBI, 1 he kept), "THIRD PRINT IS FORWARDED" would be a 4th copy of the film - 0184?

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, Mr. Zapruder, after you had the film developed I understand Mr. Sorrels from the Secret Service came over and helped you get the films developed and you gave two copies of your films to Mr. Sorrels, is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes. One we have sent to Washington the same night and one went over for the viewers of the FBI on Ervay Street.

(1 sentence later)

Mr. ZAPRUDER - The Secret Service--I brought one roll there and they told me to dispatch it by Army plane or I don't know what they had done with it but it was supposed to have gone to Washington and one of them, I believe, remained here with Mr. Sorrels. He came to my office quite a few times to show them to different people.
Mr. LIEBELER - Now, I understand that you, yourself, retained the original film?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No; I don't have that at all--I don't have any at all. They were sold to Time and Life magazines.

Zap gives "two copies", so we understand he kept 2 films of the 4 created and gave 2.  What is Max referring to here as the "third print"?  We are told that Zap gave up the "master" film keeping a copy. 

"THEY" were sold to Time and Life" meaning the 2 films he had in his possession.

Can you explain which film was sent to Rowley (0183, 0185, 0186 or 0187?) and why a 5th film, 0184 is not the film sent to Rowley - and disappears until films show up at NPIC over the weekend, the first of which is described by Dino as the in camera original with much more imagery than the extant film.

Thanks

Edited June 20 by David Josephs

[Keven Hofeling]

8 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

1.   Have you personally carried out any research which establishes beyond doubt that the claim that the original Zapruder was sent to Life representatives in Chicago on the afternoon of Saturday, November 23, 1963 is a “false claim” and a deliberate untruth (i.e. “a lie”)?

2.   Have you any independent, corroborated and concrete evidence which establishes beyond doubt where (and how, and when) the original Zapruder film went after it left Zapruder’s office between 10 and 10:30 AM on that Saturday morning?

The million-dollar question in relation to these two questions, as Doug Horne articulates in the excerpts below, is:

IF LIFE HAD THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM THE WEEKEND OF THE ASSASSINATION THEN WHY DID LIFE PRINT ONLY LOW RESOLUTION GRAINY BLACK AND WHITE STILLS IN ITS 11/29/1963 ASSASSINATION EDITION?

The following are excerpts from Doug Horne's comprehensive footnoted online essay which traces the chain of custody of the camera-original Zapruder film and the three contemporaneously struck copies which seems to me to be the best presentation available of the evidence that the camera-original Zapruder film was diverted from its reported destination to LIFE's printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, 11/23/63:

'The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: SIGNPOSTS POINTING TO THE FILM’S ALTERATION'

By Douglas P. Horne, Author of “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" 

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

"...Saturday, November 23^rd:

Abraham Zapruder met with Secret Service officials and Mr. Stolley of LIFE in his office on Saturday morning, 11/23/63, and projected the original film for them on his 8 mm projector.[9]   

 [9] Trask, 2005, p. 127-131; and Wrone, 2003, p. 32-35.

He then struck a deal with Richard Stolley, selling to LIFE, for $50,000.00, worldwide print media rights to the assassination movie (but not motion picture rights).  Zapruder agreed in this initial contract that he would not exploit the film as a motion picture, himself, until Friday, November 29^th.  Zapruder immediately relinquished the camera-original film to LIFE for a six day period, and kept in his possession the one remaining “same day copy.”  By the terms of this initial contract with LIFE, Zapruder was to have the original film returned to him by LIFE on or about November 29^th, and in exchange he was then to give LIFE the remaining first day copy.[10]

[10] Horne, 2009, p. 1200.

Richard Stolley immediately put the film on a commercial flight bound for Chicago, where LIFE’s principal printing plant was located.[11] 

[11] Trask, 2005, p. 131; and Wrone, 2003, p. 34-35.

The presses for the November 29^th edition had been stopped on Friday, the day of the assassination, and the plan was to make major use of the imagery from Zapruder’s film as the issue was reconfigured.

Now, here is the doubtful part of the chain of custody story that will require modification after we study the two NPIC events the weekend of the assassination: the traditional belief, for decades, was that the original Zapruder film remained with LIFE in Chicago from early Saturday evening, until Tuesday, November 26^th, when the first issues of the reconfigured November 29^th issue began to appear on local newsstands.  The principal reference supporting this traditional view of the Zapruder film’s chain of custody, from Saturday through Tuesday, has been pgs. 311-318 of Loudon Wainwright’s 1986 memoir, titled The Great American Magazine: An Inside History of LIFE.  In his book, Wainwright recounts hearsay passed along to him from others at LIFE about how the film was processed in Chicago—who was on the team that prepared the use of blowups from the film, how they worked on the layout, etc.[12] 

[12] Horne, 2009, p. 1346-1350.

The magazine was actually printed at Chicago’s R. R. Donnelly and Company printing plant; prior to the actual layout and graphics work at the printing plant, numerous 8 x 10 inch prints were run off at a separate Chicago photo lab.[13] 

[13] Trask, 2005, p.  152-155; and Wrone, 2003, p. 34-35, and 52-53.

We shall further discuss the activities in Chicago, and what was actually published in the November 29^th issue, toward the end of this article.  The only part of the Chicago story that is subject to doubt is the exact timing of when the LIFE editorial and technical team actually performed its layout of the Zapruder frames for the November 29^th issue: was it actually Saturday night, or was it really Sunday night, or perhaps even early Monday morning before dawn?

Sunday, November 24^th:  On Sunday evening, Richard Stolley, on behalf of LIFE, approached Abraham Zapruder on the phone and requested that they meet to negotiate LIFE’s acquisition of additional rights to the film.  “Something” had happened that caused the magazine to seek all rights to the film, including motion picture rights, and outright ownership of both the original film, and all copies.  These additional rights would prove extremely expensive to Time, Inc., LIFE magazine’s parent company.

Monday, November 25^th:  After the conclusion of President Kennedy’s funeral on Monday—the funeral ended at about 2 PM Dallas time (CST), with Air Force One flying over the gravesite at 2:54 PM EST, and with the former First Lady, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, lighting the eternal flame at 3:13 PM EST—Stolley, Zapruder, and his attorney for this purpose, Sam Passman, met to renegotiate the sale contract for the film.  Earlier that day, LIFE’s publisher, C.D. Jackson, had relayed to Stolley the formal approval of the Board of Time, Inc. for him to renegotiate the contract.[14]

[14] Wrone, 2003, p. 34-37.

For a renegotiated total price of $150,000.00 ($100,000.00 more than the original contract signed on Saturday), Time, Inc. now gained all rights to the Zapruder film’s imagery (domestic and foreign; and newsreel, television, and motion picture); and permanent ownership of the original and all three copies of the “8 mm color films,” thus erasing any doubt that the original and the copies had been slit to 8 mm on Friday.  In addition, the new contract stipulated that Time, Inc. would pay to Zapruder an amount equal to one half of all gross receipts for use of the film, above and beyond the new $150,000.00 sale price.   (The contract stipulated that Time, Inc. would also own the two “first-day copies” that Zapruder had loaned to the Secret Service, once they were returned; they never were returned.)[15]

[15] Horne, 2009, p. 1200-1201.

Tuesday, November 26^th:  The first newsstand copies of the November 29^th issue of LIFE began to trickle out; the issue displayed a total of 31 fuzzy, poor resolution, black-and-white images of blowups from individual frames of the film.[16] 

[16] Trask, 2005, p. 154-155.

Twenty-eight of them were quite small; two were medium sized; and one was a large format reproduction. What is hard to understand, in retrospect, is why LIFE magazine published such muddy, indistinct images of a film that its parent company, Time Inc., had spent an additional $100,000.00 to repurchase...."

"...Let us reexamine where the three copies were that day, on Saturday, 11/23/63.  One “first day copy” remained with Zapruder in Dallas; one had been loaned to the FBI in Dallas by the Secret Service in Dallas, and was flown to FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Saturday night, via the Baltimore airport;[23] 

[23] Trask, 2005, p. 122.

and the third “same day copy” had been flown to Secret Service headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Friday night, and had arrived sometime between midnight and dawn.  Let us assume that the Secret Service copy in the nation’s capital had arrived by sunrise (a conservative estimate), and that officials at Secret Service headquarters had spent all morning Saturday reviewing it.  Even if those conservative timelines were the case, then if it were the film brought to Brugioni for the briefing board work, WHY WAS IT NOT DELIVERED AT NOON, OR ONE O’CLOCK PM ON SATURDAY?   The fact that the film delivered to him arrived at 10 PM, and the fact that it had not been seen by the two men who couriered it to NPIC, mitigates against the film he worked with having been the “first day copy” sent to Washington by the Dallas Secret Service (Max Phillips) on Friday night.

That is most unlikely for another reason, as well.  Enlargements of tiny 8 mm frames for briefing boards would not have been made from a copy film if the original film were available.  Furthermore, Dino Brugioni himself would have noticed the soft focus if he had been working with a copy film, instead of an original.

So in my view, it is clear that the camera-original Zapruder film was intercepted in Chicago by Federal agents identifying themselves as Secret Service late on Saturday afternoon or early Saturday evening, and then flown directly to Washington D.C., and taken immediately to NPIC, in the Navy Yard, from Washington National Airport.

What this means is that the timing of the activities in Chicago reported by Loudon Wainwright in his memoir (mentioned above) was simply off by 24 hours.  No doubt he got all the names of those involved correct, and their various roles in preparing the layout in the November 29^th issue correct, but was just off by one day in recounting when it happened.  After all, he was not present at those events, and was reporting hearsay.

We know that the alteration at “Hawkeyeworks” was finished sometime before the middle of the evening on Sunday, November 24^th.  We know that because the altered film, now in 16 mm wide, “double 8” format again, arrived at NPIC Sunday night, after dark.  We even know that “dupes” of the film were made at “Hawkeyeworks,” according to Bill Smith.[24]

[24] ARRB interview of Homer A. McMahon conducted on July 14, 1997 by Douglas Horne. https://dickatlee.com/issues/assassinations/jfk/homer_mcmahon_transcript_reformat.pdf

And there is strong evidence that such dupes—or at least one such dupe—known in the trade as “dirty dupes,” were run off as black and white copies at “Hawkeyeworks,” and then rushed to Chicago Sunday night so that the magazine could begin its layout for the revised November 29^th issue.  Three such “dirty dupes”—all unslit, 16 mm wide, “double 8” versions of the Zapruder film—surfaced in January of 2000 when the LMH Co. materials were physically transferred to the Sixth Floor Museum, in Dallas.  They are all black and white products (as are the 31 poor quality blowup prints of the Zapruder film published in the November 29^th issue of LIFE).  As noted by author Richard Trask, one of them, a “reversal black-and-white positive,” does contain markings that “…appear to be markings used to determine selected images for inclusion in LIFE magazine.”[25]

[25] Trask, 2005, p. 118.

Unfortunately, both Roland Zavada and Richard Trask (who has endorsed Zavada’s view) have gotten carried away by the discovery of these three black-and-white “dirty dupes,” and have drawn entirely the wrong conclusion from these materials discovered about twelve-and-one-half years ago.  They have both concluded that the camera-original Zapruder film was not slit after all, at the Kodak Plant in Dallas, the day of the assassination.  This absurd conclusion flies in the face of the expert testimony collected by Zavada himself in 1997 and 1998 as he repeatedly interviewed and corresponded with the surviving managers and technicians who worked at the Kodak Plant in Dallas on the day of JFK’s assassination; flies in the face of the manuscript written by Mr. Phil Chamberlain (the Production Supervisor of the Kodak Plant in Dallas) in the late 1970s; and flies in the face of the many witnesses who saw Mr. Zapruder project his 8 mm camera-original film, using an 8 mm projector, on Saturday, November 23^rd. [26]

[26] Trask, 2005, p. 117-119; and Horne, 2009, p. 1277-1281.

I have an alternative, and more reasonable, explanation for the origin of these “dirty dupes”—one more in line with Occam’s Razor, and which respects expert eyewitness testimony (instead of disrespecting it). I believe that at least one of the three unslit “double 8” Zapruder film “dirty dupes” found at the Sixth Floor Museum in January of 2000, among the donated materials from the LMH Co. (that once belonged to LIFE magazine), was run off in a contact printer at “Hawkeyeworks” on Sunday evening after the alteration of the Zapruder film was completed.  It was then, I believe, rushed to Chicago from Rochester so that LIFE magazine, now behind schedule, could get going on its layout for the delayed November 29^th issue.  Arrival of just one “dirty dupe” at the Donnelly printing plant on Sunday night would have provided the imagery necessary for the first mail-out issues of the magazine to be ready for mailing Monday afternoon, November 25^th, and would also have been consistent with the first newsstand issues hitting the shelves on Tuesday, November 26^th, as reported by Trask.  In his 2005 book, National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film, Trask writes (on p. 117): “The cardboard container associated with the 16 mm films included a printed address reading ‘Allied Film Laboratory, 306 W. Jackson, Chicago 6, Illinois.’” In my view, this might merely indicate that one “dirty dupe” was received from “Hawkeyeworks,” and that the lab in question ran off two more copies of the first “dirty dupe” after it arrived in Chicago Sunday night.  Or it might indicate nothing at all related to the provenance of the dupes.  Even if the box does indicate a connection between Allied Film Laboratory and the dupes, the presence of the box alone does not indicate that all three of the dupes were run off in Chicago, nor does it tell us that they were copied from the camera-original film.

As Trask himself says, Kodak lab personnel interviewed in “recent years” (presumably he means the 1980s through 2005, when his own book was published) “…seem to recall that in 1963 all four films were slit into 16 mm format.”   Yes, that’s what they have recalled, because that is what happened—all four films (the camera-original, and the three first-day copies) were all slit down to 8 mm on Friday night in Dallas, after the three copies were developed, and before Zapruder departed the Kodak Plant.  There is no serious or believable reason to doubt their consistent recollections.

In conclusion, a highly significant fact about the November 29^th issue of LIFE, and the four briefing board panels at NARA, that even many “alterationists” have not dealt with adequately, is that the frames in that early issue of LIFE that depict JFK’s head wound appear to show the same head wound seen in the extant film today.  [This makes perfect sense to me; no cabal at “Hawkeyeworks” in charge of altering the film to hide evidence of shots from the front would have dared to allow LIFE to have a print of the movie before the film was altered.]  My main point here, though, is that the prints posted on the four briefing board panels at the Archives (from the McMahon event) are also consistent with the frames published in LIFE on November 29^th, and have frame numbers assigned to them in the NPIC working notes that are consistent with the frame numbers used today in association with those same frames in the extant film.  About five or six of the frame numbers denoted in the NPIC notes (which describe the photos mounted on the four briefing board panels) are off by one frame (denoting human fallibility—obvious counting errors attributable to fatigue, or haste that night), but the frame numbers and images associated with the briefing boards are consistent with the extant film today.  That is to say, there are no major deviations, or patterns in the frame numbering indicating that the film McMahon worked with was structured differently than the one we know today. The obvious implication of these facts discussed above is that at least the major alterations to the Zapruder film (such as frame excisions and deletions, and alterations of the head wound images) were completed by Sunday night, 11/24/63—and that perhaps all of the alterations were completed by Sunday night, when the film left “Hawkeyeworks,” on its way to NPIC in Washington, D. C...."

"...In my view, the alterations that were performed were aimed at quickly removing the most egregious evidence of shots from the front (namely, the exit debris leaving the skull toward the left rear, and the gaping exit wound which the Parkland Hospital treatment staff tells us was present in the right-rear of JFK’s head).  I believe that in their minds, the alterationists of 1963 were racing against the clock—they did not know what kind of investigation, either nationally or in Texas, would transpire, and they were trying to sanitize the film record as quickly as possible before some investigative body demanded to “see the film evidence.”  There was not yet a Warren Commission the weekend following the assassination, and those who planned and executed the lethal crossfire in Dealey Plaza were intent upon removing as much of the evidence of it as possible, as quickly as possible.  As I see it, they did not have time for perfection, or the technical ability to ensure perfection, in their “sanitization” of the Zapruder film.  They did an imperfect job, the best they could in about 12-14 hours, which was all the time they had on Sunday, November 24, 1963, at “Hawkeyeworks.”  Besides, there was no technology available in 1963 that could convincingly remove the “head-snap” from the Zapruder film; you could not animate JFK’s entire body without it being readily detectable as a forgery, so the “head-snap” stayed in the film.  (The “head snap” may even be an inadvertent result—an artifact of apparently rapid motion—caused by the optical removal of several “exit debris” frames from the film.  When projected at normal speed at playback, any scene in a motion picture will appear to speed up if frames have been removed.  Those altering the film may have believed it was imperative to remove the exit debris travelling through the air to the rear of President Kennedy, even if that did induce apparent “motion” in his body which made it appear as though he might have been shot from the front.  The forgers may have had no choice, in this instance, but to live with the lesser of two evils.  Large amounts of exit debris traveling toward the rear would have been unmistakable proof within the film of a fatal shot from the front; whereas a “head snap” is something whose causes could be debated endlessly, without any final resolution.)

Those who altered the Zapruder film knew that the wound alteration images in frames 317, 321, 323, 335, and 337, for example, were “good enough” to show investigators the film on a flimsy movie screen coated with diamond dust, but they also knew the alterations were not good enough to withstand close scrutiny.  That is why I believe C.D. Jackson—the CIA’s asset at LIFE and its best friend in the national print media—instructed Richard Stolley to again approach Abraham Zapruder on Sunday night, and to offer a much higher sale price for Zapruder’s movie, in exchange for LIFE’s total ownership of the film, and all rights to the film.  By Sunday night, the name of the game at LIFE was suppression, not profit-making.  By Sunday night, November 24^th, C. D. Jackson was wearing his CIA hat, not his Time, Inc. businessman’s hat.  After striking the new deal with Time, Inc. on Monday, Zapruder received an immediate $25,000.00, and the remainder of his payments ($25,000.00 per year, each January, through January of 1968), were effectively structured as “hush money” payments.  His incentive to keep his mouth shut about the film’s alteration would clearly be his desire to keep getting paid $25,000.00 each January, for the next five years.

The alterationists in 1963 also had a “disposal” problem, for they had three genuine “first day copies” of the Zapruder film floating around which threatened to proliferate quickly, unless they could get them out of circulation immediately, replaced with new “first generation copies” stuck from the new “Hawkeyeworks” master delivered to NPIC on Sunday night.

For them, speed was of the essence, not perfection.  I believe that once the new “master” was completed at “Hawkeyeworks” early Sunday evening, three new first generation copies were struck from it, as well as at least one “dirty dupe” for the LIFE editorial crew standing by in Chicago.  Only after these products were exposed at Rochester, early Sunday evening, was the “new Zapruder film” (masquerading as an unslit, 16 mm wide camera-original “double 8” film) couriered down to NPIC by “Bill Smith,” who took his cock-and-bull story along with him, to his everlasting discredit.

Of course, the cock-and-bull story worked, since Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter knew nothing about the event with the true camera-original film at NPIC the previous night.  McMahon and Hunter had no reason, on Sunday night, 11/24/63, to disbelieve “Bill Smith” when he told them that he had brought “the camera-original film” with him, after it had been “developed” at Rochester.  After all, the product handed to them looked like a camera-original “double 8” film: it was a 16 mm wide unslit film, with sprocket holes on both sides, and exhibited opposing image strips, upside down in relation to each other, and going in reverse directions.

I am quite sure that by Tuesday, November 26^th, all of the original “first day copies” had been swapped out with the three replacements made at “Hawkeyeworks” Sunday night from the new “original.”

NPIC finished up with the new “original” Zapruder film by some time Monday morning, November 25^th, or perhaps by mid-day Monday at the latest.  McMahon went home after the enlargements (the 5 x 7 prints) were run off, but the graphics people at NPIC still had to finish assembling the three sets of four panel briefing boards.

And the rest is history.  Now, through the magic of high resolution digital scans—technology undreamed of in 1963, in an analog world—the forgery and fraud of November, 1963 is being exposed, slowly but surely.  Alterations that were “good enough” to hold up on a flimsy, portable 8 mm movie screen back in 1963, look quite bad—very crude—today, under the magnifying glass of today’s digital technology.

The two back-to-back “briefing board events” the weekend of President Kennedy’s assassination at the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, D.C.—compartmentalized operations bracketing the Zapruder film’s alteration at the “Hawkeyeworks” lab in Rochester, N.Y.—are the signposts that illuminate for us, like two spotlights piercing the night sky, the hijacking of our nation’s history almost 49 years ago.

The Zapruder film was altered by the U.S. government, using clandestine, state-of-the-art Kodak resources in Rochester, to remove the most egregious evidence within the film of shots that came from in front of JFK’s limousine.  The true exit wound in the rear of his head was blacked out in many frames; frames showing exit debris from the fatal head shot propelled violently to the left rear were removed from the film; and a false “exit wound” was added to many of the image frames, in an attempt to support the lone assassin cover story. The altered film is one of the strongest proofs of a massive government cover-up following President Kennedy’s death, and the intelligence community’s third party surrogates are doing all they can, today, to deny that the film was ever altered, and discredit this story.  I believe the facts speak for themselves...."

'Uncovering the Probable Techniques Used to Alter the Zapruder Film in November 1963'

Drawing inspiration from the groundbreaking research of esteemed Australian physicist John Costella, this video delves into a meticulous examination of the intricate processes possibly employed in the creation of the Zapruder film. By exploring the technological capabilities accessible to forgers during the pivotal year of 1963, we aim to provide a detailed and enlightening analysis of the potential methodologies utilized in crafting this historic piece of footage. Join us on a journey through history and technology as we uncover the secrets behind one of the most iconic films of our time.

 

Edited June 20 by Keven Hofeling

[Roger Odisio]

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

Correct. He was recalling events from more than 30 years earlier.

Roger's convoluted and unnecessary scenario depends ultimately on recollections from more than 30 years after the event. Let go, Roger! Once you admit that people can get stuff wrong when recalling events from decades earlier, the whole flimsy structure collapses.

 

I have followed with amusement as your "explanations" for why the Z Film was not altered have shifted. 

 

Your first response was outright dismissal.  They never would have tried to alter the film when they could have simply destroyed it, you asserted. Destruction would  have been no problem.  They could have blamed it on some hapless employee, and that would be that.

 

I, for one, pointed out that altering the film to remove incriminating parts means that the original film was replaced--it no longer existed--but in that case, if the alteration was successful, a film remained that could be claimed to be the original. That was a good reason for alteration to be tried.  Oops.  We haven't heard any more from you about destruction being the better option.

 

Now you're back with a new "better option":  simply burying the film from public view until things blew over was a better option than altering it. That was all they had to do you repeatedly claim; alteration was unnecessary.   And look! we know that's what they did.  

 

You explain:  "It was in Life's business interests to acquire the film in the first place, and it was in the interests of the political establishment, of which Life and its owners were part, for Life to keep the film largely away from public view until the immediate fuss had died down. There is no need to add the extra complication of altering the film."

 

Left unaddressed is *why* Life, on its own and in its own interest, wanted to bury the film.  I'm going to assume you agree the film contradicted the Oswald story, and at that point Life knew that the film showed that. As a disinterested news organization acting on their own as such, why would they keep that information from the public? 

 

You vaguely hint at an answer.  It was "the political establishment" that wanted the film kept from public view and Life was part of that.  Does that mean you think Life was not solely acting on its own?  It gave up any commercial interest it had to profit from showing the film, or its responsibility as a news org, while risking its reputation if people found out what it was doing? Instead, it went along with the establishment? You apparently can't think of any reason Life would do that of its own volition (and there isn't any), so this is what you came up with?.

 

You acknowledge that LIfe's publisher CD Jackson was a lifelong CIA asset.  Did he make the decision early on the bury the film?  But, if so,  it was not his CIA connections that mattered in his decision. It was that political establishment that was key?  You're sure the CIA wasn't involved, including the use of its two labs, when at times you allow for that possibility. 

 

Well, then who were these unnamed establishment folks you allude to and why did *they* want Life to keep the film from the public?  Had they seen the film too by the time Life bid on it Saturday morning?  Why did they want to prevent the public from seeing it? You must have a terrific answer to these questions that you haven't revealed yet.

 

It must have occurred to you that the killers, who surely knew what the film showed, also did not want the public to see it. But in your scenario they stood idly by while Life bought the rights, eventually paying the equivalence of $1.5 million dollars for the full rights, and took the film to Chicago so they could show the world what the film captured by publishing key frames from it.  Knowing that if that happened they, the killers, were likely going to be toast.

 

No problem you say in your latest version. Life and their establishment friends had already determined for some reason you can't explain to bury the film for as long as they could get away with. If they were in fact doing what the killers wanted, well, that was just a coincidence. There is no documentary evidence the killers left behind that shows they were involved with hiding the film.

 

You characterize this as the simple explanation;  trying alteration instead of all of this is an unnecessary complication.

 

That leads you to "explain" that even it it were true that the film was diverted to the CIA's NPIC and HW labs that weekend, nothing was done with or to the film there.  Unnamed folks wandered by, did nothing with the film, and then went home, you said yesterday. You reached that conclusion mainly because you could find no "documentation" from the CIA that the film had been sent to either of their labs or work had been done on it.

 

You need to keep working on this story.  You haven't explained anything.

 

As to your repeated claim the Life had left on Saturday with both the original film and copy because that's what the "documentary evidence"  from the Life employee said happened:

 

You don't mention it but I assume you're not going to deny that there were two agreements between Life and Zapruder that weekend.  The first was for *temporary*, limited rights for Life to use the original to make stills for their magazine.  A few days later Life was supposed to return the original to Zapruder in exchange for a copy he had retained. The next day (Sunday) Life returned to Zapruder, tore up the first contract, and paid Zapruder another $100,000 in 4 installments for the full rights to the original film. There is the evidence that Zapruder had kept a copy until at least Sunday when the new deal was struck.

 

It was clear that *by then* Life was buying the full rights in order to bury the film from public view.  I said this was after the work that was done at the two CIA labs showed  (1) the original film contradicted the Oswald story and (2) the incriminating evidence couldn't be eliminated .

 

You say no, Life and the "political establishment" had from the beginning wanted to prevent the public from seeing the film for some reason. You'll get back to me at some point to explain what that reason was. And how it differed from the killers' reasons.

 

I notice the way you counterpose what you call my speculation based on unsupported assumptions with your citing of documentary evidence to support your claims. That means you must be right doesn't it?

 

Here it is again

 

"Again, Roger is basing his speculation on unsupported assumptions. In this instance, it's that the people behind the assassination (a) had Oswald killed, and (b) had control of the Zapruder film. Even if assumption (b) is correct, Roger's question (why did the killers do "nothing about the Z film that showed he couldn't have done it like their story claimed?") isn't valid. Something was done about the Zapruder film. It was largely kept away from public view for over a decade. As I keep pointing out, there was no need to alter it."

 

There is some doubt that the killers had Oswald murdered?  

 

You claim the the choice of Oswald as the patsy *inevitably* implicated the Soviets and Cubans in the murder.  Here you strangely ignore the documentary evidence showing that didn't happen. The WR went with the lone nut "explanation" instead.

 

It's true there were factions among those that wanted Kennedy eliminated who wanted to use his death to go after the Soviets and Cubans. But Johnson, the new president who would have to do that wanted no part of a war with them, which would have been the result.

 

You end your note with a question to me you imagine is telling:  "Do you think it is possible that someone could be mistaken when recalling details of an event which took place more than 30 years earlier?"  Actually your claim about Brugioni is about more than the details he talked about. You have at times claimed his briefing boards story never happened. I had said the boards were destroyed about a decade after the murder when he revealed he still had a copy. Aha!  Where is the documentary evidence they ever existed?  Where is the memo from Brugioni saying he destroyed them? 

 

In any case the answer to your question is yes. People can misremember things.  Duh. But you need to do more than to point to Brugioni's age to try to claim he was mistaken. I asked if you had watched Brugioni's interviews for evidence that indicated uncertainty or a cloudy memory, but got no answer. I asked if you watched Brugioni's interviews but again no response.  If you haven't I suggest you do.

[Denise Hazelwood]

If you want to see evidence of the CIA's involvement in a "benign conspiracy," along with evidence of a cooperative "Agreement Between CIA and Secret Service" that was triggered by "the death of a President," you can find it on my website at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/cia-documents.html. You can also see the "CIA Dispatch" wherein the agency told its assets how to deal with critics of the Warren Report and where the weaponization of the term "Conspiracy Theorist" originated. (Thank you, Dr. Mantik, for pointing me to that "Dispatch" document. The others I found on my own.) These documents are presented for you here, in one place, so you don't have to go digging for them yourself--and let me tell you, that CIA online "Reading Room" is not easy to navigate, although it is less daunting than the Archives website.

If you have any documents to add, please do not hesitate to share on this forum, and a heads-up message to me would not be amiss.

 

Edited June 20 by Denise Hazelwood
Instructions on how to add documents.

[Steven Kossor]

The Jamieson film company in Dallas was known as "The Hollywood of Texas" in 1963 and appears to have had all of the optical printers and other special effects film editing equipment on-site and operational at the time the Zapruder film arrived there.  If the plotters intended to create a false visual history of the JFKA to stand in place of (and refute) eyewitness testimony to the extent necessary - as would seem likely - it would make sense for them to stage the big event in the city where The Hollywood of Texas was located, and to begin the process of creating the false film record within minutes (not hours) after the shooting occurred.  Brugioni and others could have been playing what amounted to spectator roles while the plot was unfolding around them.  Food for thought.

Edited June 21 by Steven Kossor

[Matt Cloud]

1 hour ago, Steven Kossor said:

The Jamieson film company in Dallas was known as "The Hollywood of Texas" in 1963 and appears to have had all of the optical printers and other special effects film editing equipment on-site and operational at the time the Zapruder film arrived there.  If the plotters intended to create a false visual history of the JFKA to stand in place of (and refute) eyewitness testimony to the extent necessary - as would seem likely - it would make sense for them to stage the big event in the city where The Hollywood of Texas was located, and to begin the process of creating the false film record within minutes (not hours) after the shooting occurred.  Brugioni and others could have been playing what amounted to spectator roles while the plot was unfolding around them.  Food for thought.

A valid point. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

I have followed with amusement as your "explanations" for why the Z Film was not altered have shifted.

My arguments have not shifted.

Quote

Your first response was outright dismissal.  They never would have tried to alter the film when they could have simply destroyed it, you asserted.

Correct. Destroying the film was the only sure way to eliminate any incriminating evidence contained in the film.

Quote

I, for one, pointed out that ... if the alteration was successful, a film remained that could be claimed to be the original. ... We haven't heard any more from you about destruction being the better option.

Apart from my lengthy response to your claim, pointing out that there is still no good reason not to have destroyed the film, for anyone who (a) controlled the film and (b) wanted to eliminate the incriminating evidence within it.

Quote

Now you're back with a new "better option":  simply burying the film from public view until things blew over was a better option than altering it.

Keeping the film largely away from public view is what actually happened. Roger doesn't seem to understand that I've been addressing two different scenarios:

1. If anyone with control of the film wanted to eliminate completely the incriminating evidence it contained, destroying it was the only guaranteed method of doing this.
2. If anyone with control of the film didn't feel the need to eliminate this evidence completely, all they needed to do was to prevent the public at large seeing the film as a moving image.

Scenario 1 is what would have happened if Roger's assumptions (about who had control of the film, and what they wanted) were correct. Scenario 2 is what happened in reality.

Quote

Left unaddressed is *why* Life, on its own and in its own interest, wanted to bury the film.

I explained this in my previous comment. Life was acting on behalf of the political establishment, of which it was a part. By Monday 25th, when Zapruder signed over ownership of the film to Life, the political establishment had settled on the 'Oswald did it on his own' story. Life played its part in keeping unhelpful information out of the public's view. Of course, there may also have been commercial motives involved in obtaining ownership of the film.

Quote

It must have occurred to you that the killers, who surely knew what the film showed, also did not want the public to see it.

Again with the assumptions! Roger is assuming that whoever instigated the assassination both controlled the film and wanted the lone-nut story to become the accepted interpretation. Let go of those assumptions, Roger! Look at the evidence first, and base your conclusions on that, rather than on preconceived assumptions.

Quote

That leads you to "explain" that even it it were true that the film was diverted to the CIA's NPIC and HW labs that weekend, nothing was done with or to the film there.

I explained that all the documentary evidence we possess indicates that the original film was not "diverted to the CIA's NPIC and HW labs that weekend". The only evidence to the contrary is someone's recollections from more than 30 years later.

Quote

The next day (Sunday) Life returned to Zapruder, tore up the first contract, and paid Zapruder another $100,000 in 4 installments for the full rights to the original film. There is the evidence that Zapruder had kept a copy until at least Sunday when the new deal was struck.

Life's contract with Zapruder for full ownership of the film was signed on Monday 25th, not Sunday 24th.

Roger has presented no evidence at all to support his earlier claim that Zapruder didn't hand over his first-day copy to Richard Stolley on Saturday 23rd. I'm not sure why he keeps pressing this point. It really isn't controversial that Stolley took Zapruder's first-day copy with him on the Saturday morning along with the original film.

On this subject, perhaps Roger could read Chris Scally's comment and answer Chris's questions.

Quote

I notice the way you counterpose what you call my speculation based on unsupported assumptions with your citing of documentary evidence to support your claims. That means you must be right doesn't it?

It means that it is irrational to make speculative assertions based on unsupported assumptions when that speculation is contradicted by documentary evidence.

Quote

You claim the the choice of Oswald as the patsy *inevitably* implicated the Soviets and Cubans in the murder.  Here you strangely ignore the documentary evidence showing that didn't happen. The WR went with the lone nut "explanation" instead.

Roger doesn't seem to understand the point I was making. I explained why Oswald's apparent links with the Cuban and Soviet regimes would inevitably become known after he became linked to the assassination. That's why choosing him as the patsy inevitably linked those regimes with the assassination. Isn't this obvious?

And there is plenty of documentary evidence that, shortly after the assassination, people were putting two and two together and concluding that the Cubans or Soviets were behind the assassination. As for the Warren Commission, it went for the lone nut explanation in order to counteract this talk of a communist conspiracy.

Quote

You have at times claimed his briefing boards story never happened.

When did I claim this? I'm not sure I've ever mentioned the briefing boards.

Quote

the answer to your question is yes. People can misremember things.  Duh. But you need to do more than to point to Brugioni's age to try to claim he was mistaken.

It's nothing to do with his age, which is something else I have never mentioned. It's simply the length of time between the event and his recollection of that event. It's not unreasonable to suppose that he may have got some details wrong.

The point is that Roger's account is based fundamentally on one person's recollections from more than 30 years after the event. Let go of those recollections, and the whole account falls apart. You can do it, Roger!

[Greg Doudna]

I would be interested in comment, especially from Jeremy and Tom Gram, on an article which I do not believe has been even mentioned in this thread: Philip Melanson, "Hidden Exposure: Cover-Up and intrigue in the CIA's secret possession of the Zapruder film", Third Decade 1/1 (Nov 1984), 13-21, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48721#relPageId=15.

The author (Melanson) makes an argument that the NPIC assessment occurred the same night of the assassination, Fri night Nov 22, and claims there are good grounds to suppose the Secret Service obtaining the film from Zapruder (and having CIA do analytical work on that film for the Secret Service since Secret Service did not have its own labs of that calibre), would have taken the original--not a copy as has been claimed--from Zapruder, for the purpose of the analysis wanted to be done. Yes, it is an argument that Zapruder dissembled concerning what actually was loaned by him to and then returned to him by the Secret Service (the original, not a copy as Zapruder claimed). 

Melanson's primary arguments for that are (a) the Secret Service wanting to analyze that film would have wanted and demanded the original not a mere copy (and Melanson cites the Secret Service overriding of pathologist Rose at Parkland on custody of the JFK body as example that the Secret Service was capable of overriding any initial objections from a mere owner of the film in light of the importance considered at stake); and (b) Zapruder had financial motive to claim wrongly that it was only the copy that he gave, rather than lent the original, because of potential catastrophic financial consequences on sale of untouched exclusivity of an original no one else had seen, to potential buyers of the film. 

Melanson also makes an argument that the Secret Service may have obtained Zapruder's camera as well--this before the FBI obtained the camera. Melanson notes that a CIA account referring to studying the Z film "late in 1963" instead of giving an exact date, is a way the night of Nov 22 could have been "hidden" from disclosure. 

The conclusion of Melanson is that while he claims no proof or evidence anything was altered, there was means and opportunity for alteration of film and camera if CIA people had decided or wanted to do so. What he does claim is that there was secretive and not entirely truthful (on the part of Zapruder) accounting of the chain of custody of the original.

Melanson says "Between Zapruder and the Secret Service, they had possession of all three of the Dallas-made copies for nearly twenty-four hours. With the original at NPIC and with three copies made there, it is possible that if the film was doctored, the three NPIC copies of the doctored film were substituted for the three Dallas-made copies... We have only Zapruder and the Secret Service's assertions as to where the copies were for twenty-four hours."

Melanson also says the NPIC data on the timings, in which 9 timing scenarios were found by NPIC as possibilities based on interpretations of the shots in the film, some of which would mean conspiracy (more than one shooter) were wrongly claimed to have been given over to the Warren Commission, but the Warren Commission never received them (i.e. never received the possible interpretations of the Z film according to NPIC that would be consistent with conspiracy). 

Since the article is from 1984, and I have not read up to date on this topic, I always consider the possibility some of this could be obsolete in the light of later information, which if so I am hoping someone might explain, thanks.

Edited June 21 by Greg Doudna

[Chris Scally]

17 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

IF LIFE HAD THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM THE WEEKEND OF THE ASSASSINATION THEN WHY DID LIFE PRINT ONLY LOW RESOLUTION GRAINY BLACK AND WHITE STILLS IN ITS 11/29/1963 ASSASSINATION EDITION?

Mr. Hofeling:

I am very familiar with the work of Doug Horne, so I am sorry to say that your almost 4,000 word cut-and-paste "essay" was somewhat unnecessary.

To answer your question, the simple answer is that "[T]he pictures were also in black and white because color printing back then took time that we didn’t have.", according to an article titled "LIFE is on the Story" by Richard Stolley in the LIFE 50th anniversary book, "The Day Kennedy Died", published in 2013. (Kindle locn. 967 of 3790)

I trust this answers your question about the black-and-white Zapruder frames in the November 29, 1963 issue of LIFE.  

Edited June 21 by Chris Scally