The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger is welcome to believe in his entirely speculative account of what happened to the original Zapruder film on the weekend of the assassination. But he needs to do three things.

Firstly, stop presenting speculation as fact. Claims such as "CiA staff let CD Jackson at LIfe know that Johnson and McCone wanted briefing boards done at the NPIC as soon as feasible" and "The CIA flew the original film from Chicago to the NPIC in DC later on Saturday" need to be qualified; e.g. "I presume that CIA staff let CD Jackson know ..." and "The CIA would have flown the original film ...". Any easily suggestible people who read this thread might seize on Roger's unqualified statements and believe that there's evidence to back them up, when there clearly isn't any such evidence.

Secondly, account for the movements of the first-day copies. Roger's speculative claims about the original film don't exist in isolation; they have implications for the first-day copies. We have evidence about what happened to the copies, and what was going on at Life's printing plant in Chicago. As I pointed out earlier, this evidence doesn't seem to be consistent with Roger's scenario.

For example, we have evidence that one film was worked on in Chicago; one film was viewed in New York; one film was sent from Dallas to the Secret Service in Washington; one film was sent from Dallas to the FBI in Washington; and, according to Roger, one film remained in Dallas. That's five events. Add the NPIC event, and you have six film events over that weekend, shared between four films: the original and three copies. The standard interpretation provides a plausible account of which film was where, and when. But Roger's scenario doesn't. Roger needs to provide a plausible account, supported by as much documentary evidence as possible, of what he thinks happened to all four versions of the film that weekend.

Thirdly, account for the replacement of the first-day copies and any other copies that were made before the alleged replacement occurred. Given the consistency of the versions of the Zapruder film that are in existence today, Roger's claim implies that all the versions in existence today are either fakes or copies of fakes.

How might the first-day copies have been replaced, given what we know of their movements? And when did this happen? We have evidence that further copies were being made from the original and the first-day copies, beginning on the weekend of the assassination. The longer the delay in replacing the authentic copies, the more such copies would proliferate, and the more difficult it would be to round them all up and replace them. But if Roger's scenario is accurate, they must all have been rounded up and replaced. How and when might this have been done?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Michael Griffiths writes:

Quote

Making the specious argument that there's no good evidence the diversion occurred is a form of brushing it aside.

I suppose you could call pointing out the lack of evidence "brushing it aside" if you like. But this isn't a specious argument; it's an accurate observation. As we have seen over the last few pages, there really is no good evidence!

If there's a specious argument here, it's that contradictory recollections from 30 or more years later are necessarily accurate, and that a complex scenario based on speculation is more plausible than a simple scenario based on actual evidence.

Quote

To believe the diversion did not occur, you'd have to believe that the three NPIC people who disclosed it just imagined, or simply fabricated, that they saw and analyzed the Zapruder film within 48 hours of the shooting.

As I've pointed out more than once already, there's no need to believe that these 30-plus-years-later recollections were deliberately fabricated. You just need to consider the uncontroversial fact that people's detailed recollections of events from decades earlier very often contain inaccuracies.

To evaluate the credibility of those recollections, some of which are mutually contradictory and which must therefore contain inaccuracies, please take the time to read Tom Gram's comments.

[Chris Scally]

I have followed the recent discussions here about what supposedly happened to the camera-original Zapruder film and the three first-days copies, and have been astonished at the amount of unfounded speculation which has been presented as fact by people who seem to have done no actual research of their own.

So, for whatever it is worth, I set out the results of actual research which I carried out (mostly, some 10 or so years ago) in a file note to myself, and I have copied it below in the hope that it might prove to be of some use, and might help remove some of the idle speculation. I have split the file note into three "issues", which I hope will be helpful.

Issue 1 – Did Stolley get original and a copy of film, or just the original?

Richard Stolley left Zapruder’s office between 10 and 10:30 AM on November 23, 1963.  As he told Esquire in November 1973 and 1992: “In less than half an hour, we had agreed on a price — $50,000 for all print rights — and I snuck out the back door of the factory with the original film and one copy, leaving poor Zapruder to face the angry journalists in the hall.” In an e-mail to me on May 26, 2010 Gary Mack said: “Stolley still thinks he left Zapruder Saturday morning with the original and one copy, but the editor in Chicago who received the shipment [Roy Rowan] recently told him he only got the original film, which he forwarded to LIFE in New York the next day.” In another e-mail on the same date, Gary wrote: “Stolley says the Chicago editor told him in the last few days he shipped the original to New York so the Life execs could see it......”However, following a subsequent exchange of e-mails with me and two other researchers in 2010, he changed his mind about getting the 16mm format original and a copy from Zapruder, (which also more accurately reflects the language in the Saturday morning agreement between Zapruder and Stolley, ) and he confirmed it again in the Life 2013 book: “Zapruder handed me the precious original film. I asked him if there was a back door to the building, and I left him to face the angry and disappointed crowd in the hall. (One of the reporters never spoke to me again.) Back at the (Adolphus) hotel, I gave the original to a courier who flew it to Chicago, where an emergency editorial staff was closing the magazine in a temporary office set up at the Donnelley printing plant. Once the editors in Chicago saw the Zapruder film, they decided to publish 31 frames from it, but not grisly Frame 313, the head shot, out of deference to the grieving Kennedy family. The pictures were also in black and white because color printing back then took time that we didn’t have. (While those 31 prints were being hastily made from the original film, the film was slightly damaged, and six frames had to be removed.)”  

Issue 2: How did the film get to Chicago?
 
In a Nov 5, 2012, e-mail to me, Dick Stolley responded to a set of questions I had put to him:
 
Q. Did you personally take the film to the airport in Dallas, or did you give it to someone to bring to the airport?  
A. I did not take the film myself to the airport                      
Q. If you gave it to someone, can you remember who that was (Patsy Swank, perhaps?)  
A. It’s one of the things I have never been able to remember; I once thought long and hard about it, and decided that I would have considered Patsy too valuable in Dallas that tumultuous day to send her off to Chicago, so I suspect I asked her to find a trustworthy courier; I can not recall if I ever asked Roy Rowan about it, but since he’s still alive and in his 90s, I will do so 
Q. Did the film go to Chicago from Love Field, or some other local airport (I've just checked, and Dallas/Fort Worth International only opened in 1974, so I know it cannot have flown from there)? 
A. As best I can recall, it went on a commercial flight from Love Field to, I suppose, Midway in south Chicago
Q. Did the person who took the film to the airport hand it over to a courier, or did they take the film to Chicago themselves? 
A. I don’t know if I ever knew that, but the courier was probably met at the airport, assuming the Life crew in Chicago had an extra body to go to Midway; very possibly someone from the Life bureau in Chicago
Q. Was the courier a person representing you/Life, or was it a courier company? 
A. It was unlikely a courier company, but someone known to Patsy or another member of the Dallas bureau; or possibly another member of the Time-Life Dallas bureau
Q. Finally, do you recall to whom you addressed the film (Roy Rowan, perhaps?) 
A. Surely it was Roy Rowan at the address of the Donnelly printing plant”

Issue 3: What happened when the original film reached Chicago?

At Chicago’s Ruben R. Donnelley printing plant, Life’s main printing plant, an editorial team from Life’s New York office, led by Assistant Managing Editor Roy Rowan and including writer John Dille, Associate Art Director David Stech and layout artist John Geist, had assembled to prepare the next scheduled issue, due on the newsstands the following Tuesday, November 26.  According to Ray Rowan, the Life editor in Chicago who received the original film from Richard Stolley, only the original film was shipped to Chicago, and it was then sent to Life’s New York headquarters the next day.  

Joe Cook, a Chicago photographer and technical specialist who frequently worked on black-and-white film projects for Life, said he received a call at some unspecified time on Saturday informing him that Life were flying a film to a local photo lab at 53 West Jackson, which Cook described as a “drop-off point” because it was the only place a helicopter could land at that time.  Cook and some of his work colleagues were invited by the lab to view the film.  In December 2011, I sought the help of the Chicago Public Library in an effort to identify the names of any companies which operated out of the 53 West Jackson address in 1963-4. However, the CPL said they did not have a reverse lookup directory for the time in question, without which it was impossible to make any further progress.  

Cook said he had no involvement in processing the Zapruder film, work which he said was done at the 53 West Jackson ‘drop-off’ site, although I believe it may well have been done at the Allied Film Labs premises.  Cook said that among those who were present when he saw the film were a few of his colleagues, some of the people who worked at 53 West Jackson, and a representative from Life magazine.  In any event, Cook’s account seems to support the view that the camera-original film was copied in Chicago on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963.

Shortly after the film arrived in Chicago, two excellent quality 16mm black-and-white copies and a “dirty dupe” were made.   Roland Zavada has said (2010) that the absence of a ‘septum line’ on these films proves that they were made from the original film, and not one of the first-day copies.  I can confirm from photos in my possession that marking on these black-and-white copies suggest they were used to create the photos in Life’s November 29 issue.  

One of the boxes containing the black-and-white copies was marked “Allied Film Laboratory, 306 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago 6, Illinois”, and Roland Zavada has confirmed that such a lab did exist in 1963.  It was also independently confirmed in January 2010 by at least two people who worked on the issue that the black-and-white frames from the Zapruder film to be used in the November 29 issue of Life were available in the RR Donnelley "Prepress" area at around 8 pm on the Saturday evening, implying that the black-and-white copies were made on November 23. 

The foregoing is what my research uncovered. If anyone can prove any aspect of it wrong, then so be it - I will be delighted to amend my records. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in extended speculative debate about the matter.

Finally, as to the distribution of the three first day copies of the film, my understanding of what happened to each one is set out in my reply to David Josephs in a recent (June 21) post, on page 26 of this topic.

 

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

35 minutes ago, Chris Scally said:

I have followed the recent discussions here about what supposedly happened to the camera-original Zapruder film and the three first-days copies, and have been astonished at the amount of unfounded speculation which has been presented as fact by people who seem to have done no actual research of their own.

Chris - thank you again for your incredibly valuable research and contributions to the forum over the years.

[Chris Davidson]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

A sentence written by an FBI agent in a report dated 4 December 1963 is not proof that the Marie Muchmore film is a fake.

Here are some alternatives. Pick whichever you find the most plausible:

• Muchmore, who "panicked after [hearing] this [i.e. the first] shot", genuinely couldn't remember using her home movie camera during the assassination, and couldn't recall that she had recorded three seconds of film while JFK was being shot.
• Muchmore told the FBI agent that because she had panicked, she wasn't sure whether she had been using her camera at the precise time JFK was shot, but the FBI agent misunderstood what she told him.
• Muchmore had not in fact panicked; she had a clear memory, and knew for a fact that she had not used her camera during the assassination. She also knew for a fact that the film attributed to her was a fake. And the FBI also knew that it was a fake, but instead of concealing this incriminating fact decided to give the game away by creating a written document in which Muchmore implied that she didn't film the scene which the authorities claimed she had filmed.

There's no reason to doubt that Muchmore was in a state of panic when the assassination was taking place. She repeated this claim when interviewed by the FBI on 14 February 1964. The report of her interview is dated 18 February, and is included in the Gemberling Report:

There is also no reason to assume that Muchmore was aware as early as the first FBI interview on 4 December 1963 of what her film contained. She had sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination, before the film had been processed, and it was not widely broadcast. For an account of UPI's dealings with Muchmore (and Nix), see Maurice W. Schonfeld, 'The Shadow of a Gunman,' Columbia Journalism Review, July/August 1975 (updated version: https://www.cjr.org/fiftieth_anniversary/the_shadow_of_a_gunman.php).

In other words: there's nothing to see here. This is one more example of seizing on an apparent anomaly, this time textual rather than visual, and building an elaborate scenario based on nothing but speculation.

Or,

You might realize that the Feb14 statement assigned to Muchmore was some 2 1/2 months after her earliest Dec4 statement(haven't found anything earlier).

And, since you want to rely on that version, how did she know that her film consisted of some 4-5 ft of film?

Sounds more like information the FBI ascertained attempting to disqualify her earlier statement.

Was Muchmore some type of film buff who usually referred to her filming events in terms of film length instead of time?

What are the odds?

Because, according to UPI:

"Reinhardt hurried to the office and set about shaking Miss Muchmore’s confidence in the value of her film by asking if she was positive that she was filming at the very moment of the assassination, if the film was in focus, if the exposure was right. UPI would be pleased to develop the film and see if it was any good and then make an offer, Reinhardt said, or, if Miss Muchmore preferred to play it safe, UPI would make a blind cash offer. Miss Muchmore chose to play it safe and accepted a check for $1,000."

So, according to UPI, Muchmore didn't know Jck-Sht about the physical film itself.

More amazing is that supposedly, with all the excitement, she had the wherewithall to remember the length of film she took.

Simply fluxxing amazing.

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

Now, when did Muchmore advise that the physical length of her film was approx 4-5ft?

The FBI added some of their own additional information about her film, after the fact and included it in her later statement. Why would they do this? Hmmm!!!

Of course, this would mean the FBI already knew the limited(Houston St) content of her actual film. Which is exactly what she described only filming in her earlier Dec. statement.

 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

I have followed the recent discussions here about what supposedly happened to the camera-original Zapruder film and the three first-days copies, and have been astonished at the amount of unfounded speculation which has been presented as fact by people who seem to have done no actual research of their own.

So, for whatever it is worth, I set out the results of actual research which I carried out (mostly, some 10 or so years ago) in a file note to myself, and I have copied it below in the hope that it might prove to be of some use, and might help remove some of the idle speculation. I have split the file note into three "issues", which I hope will be helpful.

Issue 1 – Did Stolley get original and a copy of film, or just the original?

Richard Stolley left Zapruder’s office between 10 and 10:30 AM on November 23, 1963.  As he told Esquire in November 1973 and 1992: “In less than half an hour, we had agreed on a price — $50,000 for all print rights — and I snuck out the back door of the factory with the original film and one copy, leaving poor Zapruder to face the angry journalists in the hall.” In an e-mail to me on May 26, 2010 Gary Mack said: “Stolley still thinks he left Zapruder Saturday morning with the original and one copy, but the editor in Chicago who received the shipment [Roy Rowan] recently told him he only got the original film, which he forwarded to LIFE in New York the next day.” In another e-mail on the same date, Gary wrote: “Stolley says the Chicago editor told him in the last few days he shipped the original to New York so the Life execs could see it......”However, following a subsequent exchange of e-mails with me and two other researchers in 2010, he changed his mind about getting the 16mm format original and a copy from Zapruder, (which also more accurately reflects the language in the Saturday morning agreement between Zapruder and Stolley, ) and he confirmed it again in the Life 2013 book: “Zapruder handed me the precious original film. I asked him if there was a back door to the building, and I left him to face the angry and disappointed crowd in the hall. (One of the reporters never spoke to me again.) Back at the (Adolphus) hotel, I gave the original to a courier who flew it to Chicago, where an emergency editorial staff was closing the magazine in a temporary office set up at the Donnelley printing plant. Once the editors in Chicago saw the Zapruder film, they decided to publish 31 frames from it, but not grisly Frame 313, the head shot, out of deference to the grieving Kennedy family. The pictures were also in black and white because color printing back then took time that we didn’t have. (While those 31 prints were being hastily made from the original film, the film was slightly damaged, and six frames had to be removed.)”  

Issue 2: How did the film get to Chicago?
 
In a Nov 5, 2012, e-mail to me, Dick Stolley responded to a set of questions I had put to him:
 
Q. Did you personally take the film to the airport in Dallas, or did you give it to someone to bring to the airport?  
A. I did not take the film myself to the airport                      
Q. If you gave it to someone, can you remember who that was (Patsy Swank, perhaps?)  
A. It’s one of the things I have never been able to remember; I once thought long and hard about it, and decided that I would have considered Patsy too valuable in Dallas that tumultuous day to send her off to Chicago, so I suspect I asked her to find a trustworthy courier; I can not recall if I ever asked Roy Rowan about it, but since he’s still alive and in his 90s, I will do so 
Q. Did the film go to Chicago from Love Field, or some other local airport (I've just checked, and Dallas/Fort Worth International only opened in 1974, so I know it cannot have flown from there)? 
A. As best I can recall, it went on a commercial flight from Love Field to, I suppose, Midway in south Chicago
Q. Did the person who took the film to the airport hand it over to a courier, or did they take the film to Chicago themselves? 
A. I don’t know if I ever knew that, but the courier was probably met at the airport, assuming the Life crew in Chicago had an extra body to go to Midway; very possibly someone from the Life bureau in Chicago
Q. Was the courier a person representing you/Life, or was it a courier company? 
A. It was unlikely a courier company, but someone known to Patsy or another member of the Dallas bureau; or possibly another member of the Time-Life Dallas bureau
Q. Finally, do you recall to whom you addressed the film (Roy Rowan, perhaps?) 
A. Surely it was Roy Rowan at the address of the Donnelly printing plant”

Issue 3: What happened when the original film reached Chicago?

At Chicago’s Ruben R. Donnelley printing plant, Life’s main printing plant, an editorial team from Life’s New York office, led by Assistant Managing Editor Roy Rowan and including writer John Dille, Associate Art Director David Stech and layout artist John Geist, had assembled to prepare the next scheduled issue, due on the newsstands the following Tuesday, November 26.  According to Ray Rowan, the Life editor in Chicago who received the original film from Richard Stolley, only the original film was shipped to Chicago, and it was then sent to Life’s New York headquarters the next day.  

Joe Cook, a Chicago photographer and technical specialist who frequently worked on black-and-white film projects for Life, said he received a call at some unspecified time on Saturday informing him that Life were flying a film to a local photo lab at 53 West Jackson, which Cook described as a “drop-off point” because it was the only place a helicopter could land at that time.  Cook and some of his work colleagues were invited by the lab to view the film.  In December 2011, I sought the help of the Chicago Public Library in an effort to identify the names of any companies which operated out of the 53 West Jackson address in 1963-4. However, the CPL said they did not have a reverse lookup directory for the time in question, without which it was impossible to make any further progress.  

Cook said he had no involvement in processing the Zapruder film, work which he said was done at the 53 West Jackson ‘drop-off’ site, although I believe it may well have been done at the Allied Film Labs premises.  Cook said that among those who were present when he saw the film were a few of his colleagues, some of the people who worked at 53 West Jackson, and a representative from Life magazine.  In any event, Cook’s account seems to support the view that the camera-original film was copied in Chicago on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963.

Shortly after the film arrived in Chicago, two excellent quality 16mm black-and-white copies and a “dirty dupe” were made.   Roland Zavada has said (2010) that the absence of a ‘septum line’ on these films proves that they were made from the original film, and not one of the first-day copies.  I can confirm from photos in my possession that marking on these black-and-white copies suggest they were used to create the photos in Life’s November 29 issue.  

One of the boxes containing the black-and-white copies was marked “Allied Film Laboratory, 306 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago 6, Illinois”, and Roland Zavada has confirmed that such a lab did exist in 1963.  It was also independently confirmed in January 2010 by at least two people who worked on the issue that the black-and-white frames from the Zapruder film to be used in the November 29 issue of Life were available in the RR Donnelley "Prepress" area at around 8 pm on the Saturday evening, implying that the black-and-white copies were made on November 23. 

The foregoing is what my research uncovered. If anyone can prove any aspect of it wrong, then so be it - I will be delighted to amend my records. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in extended speculative debate about the matter.

Finally, as to the distribution of the three first day copies of the film, my understanding of what happened to each one is set out in my reply to David Josephs in a recent (June 21) post, on page 26 of this topic.

 

 

 

I have no problem, Chris, with your thorough accounting of Life's actions after winning the bid for the Z film Saturday morning. Or your conclusion about what was initially done with the original and 3 copies of the film.

 

In particular your conclusion that Stolley sent the original to Chicago but not a copy seems clear.  The original deal between Life and Zapruder required Zapruder to keep one of the 3 copies so he could exchange it for the original in a few days when Life returned the original to him. Two copies were ticketed for the SS and FBI and you said you don't think a 4th copy was ever made.

 

My point is the story of that Saturday doesn't end there.  In Washington there was a plan afoot to have briefing boards done from the Z film in order to show, as soon as was feasible, the new President and CIA director what the film had captured.  The question was, did the Z film contradict the Oswald story officials were already pushing and if so how clearly.  

 

The boards done Saturday night and into Sunday were designed to answer that question for the President and the CIA.  It's  obvious they did.

 

Which leads to the next questions:  Before the boards themselves were even finished, why was the film sent to the CIA's then secret Hawkeye Works and what was done there?  That's a question for which we can be sure no documents exist to provide answers, but it is no less important.

 

According to your timeline, there was almost 12 hours between when Stolley left with the original film and Brugioni reported to the NPIC to begin work on the boards.  What happened to the original film during that time? 

 

This is a different kind of question than the ones you looked into because documentation is likely to become sparse if it exists at all. The trip to Chicago is documented in part to establish the story, told for decades, that life began almost immediately to prepare the (original) film for use in its magazine.

 

But research involves grappling with and analyzing questions where documentation is sparse as much as it does searching for documentation.  Often such questions are the most important, as I think is true in this case. It is nonsense to brand analysis of such questions as speculation, counterposed with, and of lesser value than, "documented evidence".  

 

So that Saturday there was only one original film and two entities who wanted to use it for their own purposes.  How was it decided who would get to use the original film and by whom was that decision made? 

 

I've suggested that with life long CIA asset CD Jackson at the helm, Life was most likely fronting for the CIA from the beginning.  In which case their was no decision to be made.  Life would make do with a copy for its magazine.

 

You don't have to agree or go that far, but there is no denying of some agency for Jackson. There would have been discussions between the parties about who should get the original and who could make do with a copy.

 

Any way you look at it, it's seems obvious the President and the CIA had greater need for the original for several reasons than did Life. It's not even clear to me that using a copy would make a lot of difference to Life in making stills for its magazine, particularly when they had resolved to not use the kill shot to Kennedy's head.  Clarity of such detail about the murder, however, was vital for the boards.

 

Not to mention that the national security concerns inherent in the murder would trump any argument Life could make that they should get to use the original.

 

Recall, the question of whether the NPIC had the original with which to make the boards arose because of some claims that the Z film couldn't have been altered at the CIA labs that weekend because only a copy was available and that wouldn't have made sense.

 

I hope we can put that claim to bed, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

 

[Chris Scally]

5 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chris - thank you again for your incredibly valuable research and contributions to the forum over the years.

Many thanks for your kind words, Jonathan. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris Scally writes:

Quote

I ... have been astonished at the amount of unfounded speculation which has been presented as fact by people who seem to have done no actual research of their own.

As if to illustrate Chris's point, Roger responds with yet more unfounded, evidence-free, research-free speculation, e.g.: "Before the boards themselves were even finished, why was the film sent to the CIA's then secret Hawkeye Works and what was done there?" Pure speculation. As we have seen, there is no good evidence that any version of the Zapruder film was sent to Hawkeye Works. It's like asking: why did Stanley Kubrick choose the desert in Arizona as his location for filming the moon landings? Come on! Answer the question! Why Arizona?

I'd like to thank Chris for doing the research which Roger and others really should have done before launching into an unsupported speculation-fest. Personally, I was interested to learn that Stolley's claim in his Esquire article, that he took the remaining first-day copy with him, was incorrect. I'll update my interpretation to take account of this fact. I hope Roger and others will update their interpretations also, to take account of the facts Chris has presented.

[Chuck Schwartz]

This is from an essay by Doug Horne, " The Secret Service Customer—Bill Smith—and what he reported about the film’s provenance:  Homer McMahon said he was told by Bill Smith that a patriotic citizen in Dallas had donated the camera-original film to the Secret Service out of a sense of duty, and that the individual did not want to make any money off of the film, and so had given it to the Secret Service for free. Bill Smith told McMahon he had personally couriered the undeveloped film himself to a Top Secret Kodak film lab called “Hawkeyeworks,” which McMahon knew to be in Rochester, N.Y. at Kodak Headquarters; that it had been developed there; and that the personnel at the Top Secret lab had subsequently referred Bill Smith back to his home base of Washington, D.C., to NPIC, for the making of individual frame enlargements and briefing boards, since those specific tasks could not be performed at the lab in Rochester.  McMahon was extremely sensitive about the code-name “Hawkeyeworks” during the interview, and regretted mentioning it.  [NOTE: In 1997, the CIA’s HRG asked the ARRB staff to expunge the use of the code-word from our written interview reports, and from the audiotape of the interview to be released to the public.  Thus, in 1998, a sanitized (i.e., redacted) tape was provided by the ARRB staff for public release by the JFK Records Collection at NARA, and the Archives placed the unredacted, original tape recording under lock and key, for automatic release not later than 2017, in accordance with the JFK Records Act.  The point is now moot, for the code-name “Hawkeyeworks” has since been effectively declassified, per the mention of this facility (“Eastman Kodak’s Hawkeye Film Processing Facility in Rochester, N.Y.”) in Dino Brugioni’s 2010 book, Eyes in the Sky, which was thoroughly vetted and approved for publication by the CIA.[19] Furthermore, Dino Brugioni himself repeatedly mentioned the “Hawkeye Plant,” and the capabilities of that state-of-the-art, high-tech laboratory, during his interviews with Peter Janney and me in 2009 and 2011.]   McMahon explained that the government had classified contracts with Kodak in 1963, and that both the CIA and Kodak had their best people working together on classified projects.  He was absolutely certain that the film had been developed at Rochester, and had come from Rochester, for Bill Smith had indicated this by using the unique code-word (“Hawkeyeworks”) that unmistakably referred to the “other Top Secret lab” in Rochester, to the exclusion of all other locations.  (The “Hawkeyeworks” lab and its capabilities, as defined by Dino Brugioni, will be further discussed later in this article.)"

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Homer McMahon said he was told by Bill Smith that a patriotic citizen in Dallas had donated the camera-original film to the Secret Service out of a sense of duty

Is it not correct that "Bill Smith" has never been identified, and that there's actually no evidence he existed other than these specific accounts?

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

This is from an essay by Doug Horne, " The Secret Service Customer—Bill Smith—and what he reported about the film’s provenance:  Homer McMahon said he was told by Bill Smith that a patriotic citizen in Dallas had donated the camera-original film to the Secret Service out of a sense of duty, and that the individual did not want to make any money off of the film, and so had given it to the Secret Service for free. Bill Smith told McMahon he had personally couriered the undeveloped film himself to a Top Secret Kodak film lab called “Hawkeyeworks,” which McMahon knew to be in Rochester, N.Y. at Kodak Headquarters; that it had been developed there; and that the personnel at the Top Secret lab had subsequently referred Bill Smith back to his home base of Washington, D.C., to NPIC, for the making of individual frame enlargements and briefing boards, since those specific tasks could not be performed at the lab in Rochester.  McMahon was extremely sensitive about the code-name “Hawkeyeworks” during the interview, and regretted mentioning it.  [NOTE: In 1997, the CIA’s HRG asked the ARRB staff to expunge the use of the code-word from our written interview reports, and from the audiotape of the interview to be released to the public.  Thus, in 1998, a sanitized (i.e., redacted) tape was provided by the ARRB staff for public release by the JFK Records Collection at NARA, and the Archives placed the unredacted, original tape recording under lock and key, for automatic release not later than 2017, in accordance with the JFK Records Act.  The point is now moot, for the code-name “Hawkeyeworks” has since been effectively declassified, per the mention of this facility (“Eastman Kodak’s Hawkeye Film Processing Facility in Rochester, N.Y.”) in Dino Brugioni’s 2010 book, Eyes in the Sky, which was thoroughly vetted and approved for publication by the CIA.[19] Furthermore, Dino Brugioni himself repeatedly mentioned the “Hawkeye Plant,” and the capabilities of that state-of-the-art, high-tech laboratory, during his interviews with Peter Janney and me in 2009 and 2011.]   McMahon explained that the government had classified contracts with Kodak in 1963, and that both the CIA and Kodak had their best people working together on classified projects.  He was absolutely certain that the film had been developed at Rochester, and had come from Rochester, for Bill Smith had indicated this by using the unique code-word (“Hawkeyeworks”) that unmistakably referred to the “other Top Secret lab” in Rochester, to the exclusion of all other locations.  (The “Hawkeyeworks” lab and its capabilities, as defined by Dino Brugioni, will be further discussed later in this article.)"

Translation: The only ‘evidence’ the film was sent to Hawkeyeworks is 34 year-old hearsay reported by a single witness with admitted memory problems. 

There is no corroboration, no actual evidence, and no reason to believe that any copy of the Z-film was ever in Rochester at any time other than McMahon’s reported hearsay from alleged SS agent “Bill Smith”. 

Let’s assume for a moment that McMahon correctly remembered what “Smith” told him. How do we know that Smith reported accurate information? McMahon had no personal knowledge of where the film was taken prior to its arrival at NPIC. 

Without corroborating evidence placing the film in Rochester, the hearsay McMahon reported in 1997 is basically worthless. 

However, the theory that the film was diverted to Hawkeyeworks is presented as absolute fact by proponents of Horne’s alteration narrative - based entirely on decades-old hearsay from a single witness with questionable credibility. 

HM: Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can’t remember, really - anything. Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words I did it once, then I recalled it, then I remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know that I - that I’m not - OK. I’m a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a “wet brain” is? You’re looking at one. I damn near died, and I’m not a competent witness, because I don’t have good recall - absolutely not - absolute recall. 

Horne’s supporters dismiss this by claiming that McMahon was exaggerating, and I don’t necessarily disagree - to an extent.

Either way though, can we really treat this guy’s 34 year-old recollections as absolute fact without corroboration? Not a chance in hell.

The Hawkeyeworks theory should be presented with a huge disclaimer that it depends entirely on the accuracy of 34 year-old sole-source hearsay from a witness who testified that he had senile dementia. 

Edited Monday at 02:48 PM by Tom Gram

[Chris Scally]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Is it not correct that "Bill Smith" has never been identified, and that there's actually no evidence he existed other than these specific accounts?

Correct. Doug Horne subsequently checked a roster - provided to him by ARRB attorney Kim Herd - of all Secret Service agents attached to the White House Detail in 1963, and found that there was no agent named bill (or William) Smith on that list [Horne, "Inside the ARRB", Vol. 4., p. 1223; Richard Russell, "On the Trail of the JFK Assassins", p. 293]. 

In addition, a review of the original Zapruder film by Horne at the National Archives failed to reveal any edge-printing or other indications that might indicate that the film was processed at Rochester - indeed, all indications were that it was produced in Dallas, a fact confirmed independently by Rollie Zavada in his report for the ARRB. [Internal ARRB memo from Horne to David Marwell and Jeremy Gunn on July 16, 1977; Zavada Report, Study 1, p. 3-6]

[Pat Speer]

On 6/21/2024 at 5:39 AM, Chris Scally said:

HI David:

Thanks for your kind words, and it is good to hear from you again.

First ,the bad news - all my old files are packed away in boxes, and stored in a storage facility which is located about an hour away by car, and for health reasons, that trip and the associated rummaging through boxes of papers is not feasible right now. So, all I can offer you is my best recollection, but I will do my best to answer your questions, so here goes!

On the Friday evening, Zapruder gave two copies to Max Phillips. One of those was the copy numbered 0186 (I got a photo of the box, which had the number 0186 written on the back, from NARA some years ago). Whichever copy (probably 0186) was sent to Secret Service HQ that night was, in my opinion, most probably the copy that subsequently went to NPIC and was received by Brugioni - what time it arrived seems to be in question, as I've seen times from around 10 pm to midnight being mentioned. Anyway, as someone (a Mr. Banfield?) had  to go out to buy an 8mm projector from a local store, we can safely assume that the film was in "slit" 8mm format. 

The second copy Zapruder gave to Phillips was held by him for Forrest Sorrels, and was handed to Sorrels (or his admin assistant, Lillian Rhyan) either late on Friday night or early Saturday morning. Then early on Saturday morning, Secret Service Inspector Kelley gave a loan of the "Sorrels" copy to Dallas FBI agent James Bookhout, to allow the FBI to make a copy for themselves. This "Sorrels" copy was, I believe, in "unslit" 16mm format, as Kodak in Dallas facilitated the viewing of a 16mm copy of the film by two Dallas FBI agents on Saturday morning. That copy of the film (which I believe was not copy 0186) was sent via American Airlines flight 20 (?) to FBI HQ in Washington around 5:30 pm on Saturday (I also have a photo of that box, and it is not the box marked 0186).

As for the other "copies", Zapruder had the original (number 0183) and a slit, 8mm format copy of the film at home on Saturday morning. He showed that 8mm copy to a number of people (Sorrels and a fellow agent, Richard Stolley of Life, and others) in his office around 8 am on Saturday morning, before handing over the original film to Stolley around 10 o'clock.

Was there a fourth copy? I personally don't think there ever was a fourth copy created. When Max Phillips wrote "Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded.", I think Phillips was in error. First, Zapruder and Schwartz had not given two prints to Sorrels that evening - Zapruder had found Sorrels at DPD HQ, and Sorrels told him to take the two offered copies to the Secret Service office, where they met Phillips at 9:25 pm. When Phillips said, "The third print is forwarded" to Rowley, I think he was referring to the third of the four prints (0183, 0185, 0186 and 0187) that existed. So that would mean, by Saturday evening, that the original (0183) was by then with LIFE in Chicago; copy 0185 (in 8mm slit format) was in Zapruder's possession; 0186 (in 8mm format) was with the Secret Service/NPIC in Washington; and 0187 (an unslit copy) was with the FBI in Washington.         

 David, that is the best I can do with the  limited information I can remember, but I hope it is of some assistance. If I remember anything further, I will be sure to let you know, I promise.

Chris.

 

 

I thank you, Chris, for your participation in this thread, and your insertion of actual information. 

I had mentioned earlier that I was under the impression Zapruder held onto a first day copy of the film, and that this remained in the possession of his family. I was subsequently told my impression was incorrect. But I now see that you believe he held onto a copy after selling the original to Life.

Do we know what happened to that copy? Is it still in the hands of his family? Or is it, perhaps, at the Sixth Floor Museum?

 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I thank you, Chris, for your participation in this thread, and your insertion of actual information. 

I had mentioned earlier that I was under the impression Zapruder held onto a first day copy of the film, and that this remained in the possession of his family. I was subsequently told my impression was incorrect. But I now see that you believe he held onto a copy after selling the original to Life.

Do we know what happened to that copy? Is it still in the hands of his family? Or is it, perhaps, at the Sixth Floor Museum?

 

There’s a copy of Zapruder’s contract with Life, dated 11/25/63 and signed by Zapruder and Stolley in this link on page 12:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15xL4AoT9haROOG1HUopoQCRcE2ACLeQl/view?usp=drivesdk

It says: 

You acknowledge receipt through your agent of the original and one (1) copy thereof, and it is understood that there are two (2) other copies, one (1) of which is with the Secret Service in Dallas, Texas, and one (1) of which is with the Secret Service in Washington, DC. 

So according to the contract at least, it looks like Stolley did take both the original and the copy. 

Edited Monday at 06:02 PM by Tom Gram