The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Chris Scally]

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?

 

Thanks, Pat.

I see that, as I write this, Tom Gram has answered the question about the remaining first day copy - thanks Tom.

That contract dated November 25 was signed at a meeting in the office of Sam Passman, Zapruder's attorney, on the afternoon of that day, so it is reasonable to assume that Stolley took the remaining copy with him when he left the meeting. That so-called "Life First Day copy" of the film is now in the Sixth Floor Museum, along with with the other 1,900-item collection of Zapruder material which the family donated to the Museum in January 2000.  

[Roger Odisio]

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Scally writes:

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?

This is the most ridiculous use yet of your mantra--where is the documentary evidence for your claim; you're speculating. Since HW was the CIA's then secret lab that only they knew even existed, that documentary evidence would have to have come from them.  You're looking for documents from the CIA that would verify the existence of HW in 1963, and that show that the Zapruder film was taken there Sunday morning for something??!! 

A top secret clearance was needed by anyone visiting HW.  Brugioni had one and had visited the classified part of the facility a couple of times.  He knew what work could be done there.  It is a measure of his straightforwardness that during his interviews with Horne he said only what he knew about what happened to the film after he worked on it.  He said the film left with the ""SS agents" who brought it at about 3 AM.  But he didn't claim to know where they were going.

Brugioni said that he understood that McCone had called his boss Art Lundahl to set up his job of doing briefing boards that Saturday night.  The boards were to be done for McCone and his boss Lyndon Johnson, who were briefed Sunday morning as soon as the boards were finished.  The two folks who, in their official capacities, had the greatest need to find out what happened.  In fact the whole national security state, with the killers somewhere lurking within it, wanted to know how much the Zfilm contradicted their Oswald cover story.  And they wanted to know as quickly as was feasible, which required briefing boards.  Holding a strip of film up the the light wasn't going to cut it.

In short, there was a second entity, besides Life magazine, who had a distinct use for the film the day after the murder.  I laid this out in some detail yesterday.  You have not responded.

It's time you addressed why you think Life would have prevailed in that Saturday discussion about who should get to use the original film. Perhaps you can begin with the arguments CD Jackson would, or could, have used to explain to his co-workers at the CIA why Life should keep the original film in Chicago to make stills for its magazine and they would have to make do with a copy for briefing boards for the President and the CIA.  Does that sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me?. 

 

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

Don't lump me in with your mistake, Jeremy.  When you first claimed that Stolley left Zapruder's office with both the original and a copy, I said that was wrong.  The original deal between Life and Zapruder required Zapruder to keep a copy in order to exchange it with the original when Life returned the original to him a few days later  The other two copies, it seems clear to all, were ticketed for the SS and FBI.  I didn't even need Chris's fine research to verify that fact.  Only you have to "update".

[Matt Cloud]

10 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

This is the most ridiculous use yet of your mantra--where is the documentary evidence for your claim; you're speculating. Since HW was the CIA's then secret lab that only they knew even existed, that documentary evidence would have to have come from them.  You're looking for documents from the CIA that would verify the existence of HW in 1963, and that show that the Zapruder film was taken there Sunday morning for something??!! 

A top secret clearance was needed by anyone visiting HW.  Brugioni had one and had visited the classified part of the facility a couple of times.  He knew what work could be done there.  It is a measure of his straightforwardness that during his interviews with Horne he said only what he knew about what happened to the film after he worked on it.  He said the film left with the ""SS agents" who brought it at about 3 AM.  But he didn't claim to know where they were going.

Brugioni said that he understood that McCone had called his boss Art Lundahl to set up his job of doing briefing boards that Saturday night.  The boards were to be done for McCone and his boss Lyndon Johnson, who were briefed Sunday morning as soon as the boards were finished.  The two folks who, in their official capacities, had the greatest need to find out what happened.  In fact the whole national security state, with the killers somewhere lurking within it, wanted to know how much the Zfilm contradicted their Oswald cover story.  And they wanted to know as quickly as was feasible, which required briefing boards.  Holding a strip of film up the the light wasn't going to cut it.

In short, there was a second entity, besides Life magazine, who had a distinct use for the film the day after the murder.  I laid this out in some detail yesterday.  You have not responded.

It's time you addressed why you think Life would have prevailed in that Saturday discussion about who should get to use the original film. Perhaps you can begin with the arguments CD Jackson would, or could, have used to explain to his co-workers at the CIA why Life should keep the original film in Chicago to make stills for its magazine and they would have to make do with a copy for briefing boards for the President and the CIA.  Does that sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me?. 

 

Don't lump me in with your mistake, Jeremy.  When you first claimed that Stolley left Zapruder's office with both the original and a copy, I said that was wrong.  The original deal between Life and Zapruder required Zapruder to keep a copy in order to exchange it with the original when Life returned the original to him a few days later  The other two copies, it seems clear to all, were ticketed for the SS and FBI.  I didn't even need Chris's fine research to verify that fact.  Only you have to "update".

Hang in there, Roger.  I think you're analysis is sound and that you're onto more than you may know.

 

 

LEONARD STORY ZARTMAN OBITUARY

 

Newspapers.com

https://www.newspapers.com › ... › Oct › 11 › Page 5

 

 

 

 

Oct 11, 1982 — OBITUARIES Leonard Story Zartman, ex-secretary of Kodak, Nixon aide and lawyer Leonard Story Zartman, 56, former secretary of the Eastman Kodak ...

 

Moynihan Helped to Smooth Way For Kodak-FIGHT ...

 

The Harvard Crimson

https://www.thecrimson.com › article › moynihan-helped...

 

 

 

 

Since September, FIGHT has been demanding that Kodak hire and train 6000 unskilled, unemployed Negroes. ... His friend of 25 years, Story Zartman, who was ...

 

Moynihan Picks 4 Harvard Men

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

January 24, 1969

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the executive secretary of President Nixon's Urban Affairs Council, has appointed four Harvard-connected men to be among his six assistants.

Moynihan was director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies and a member of the Institute of Politics of the John Fitzgerald Kennedy School of Government before Nixon appointed him.

Two of Moynihan's aides are former fellows of the Institute: Stephen Hess, author of a Nixon biography and a former Eisenhower aide-whose name had been disclosed earlier-and Christopher C. DeMuth, former secretary of the Ripon Society and a member of the staff of Sen. Charles Percy (R-III.).

Also named was Richard Blumenthal '67, former editorial chairman of the CRIMSON and last year assistant to Katherine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post. Blumenthal, who coined the term "New Middle," wrote his senior honors thesis on the Moynihan Report.

John Price '62 is the fourth Harvard man among the aides. Price is the only black on the staff. He is 30 years old and a New York lawyer.

The other two assistants are Michael C. Monroe, who served on Nixon's campaign staff, and Leonard S. Zartman, an attorney formerly with Eastman Kodak Company.

The President convened the Urban Affairs Council for the first time yesterday after signing an executive order to create it.

Other members of the Council are Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development George Romney, and Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe.

 

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1969/1/24/moynihan-picks-4-harvard-men-pdaniel/

[Jonathan Cohen]

33 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

A top secret clearance was needed by anyone visiting HW. 

As Tom has pointed out...

Translation: The only ‘evidence’ the film was sent to Hawkeye Works 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”. 

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

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. 

I'm going to assume this is a honest mistake, Tom.  But your desperation to grab anything that will further your argument and your constant clamor for documentary evidence to support any view contrary to yours, regardless if that makes sense, is starting to wear thin.

The contract you cite is the *second* contract between Life and Zapruder on Nov 25.  That was when Life had returned to Zapruder to buy all rights to the film.  At that time Zapruder gave up the copy along with the original because Life had bought full rights to the film in perpetuity.

In the first contract of Nov 23, when Life was buying only limited rights to show stills in its magazine  Life was supposed to return the original to Zapruder in a few days in exchange for receiving the copy Zapruder had retained.  With the other two copies at the time ticketed for the SS and FBI that meant Zapruder was required to keep the third copy himself that Saturday under the first agreement.  Stolley did not take that copy with him.

 

[Matt Cloud]

Just FYI, a little background on Hwakeye Works / AKA Bridgehead ...

"Cuban Missile Crisis: VIP Visits Bridgehead, a Secret Mission, and Surprising Outcome

In the early 1960s, Bridgehead workers dutifully contributed to the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. During that tumultuous time, Bridgehead expeditiously responded to the call to action. The workforce moved contact printers, Versamat Processors, and other equipment rapidly to the staging area, and they accomplished this move within 48 hours. Approximately 20 operators reported to the Naval Reserve Training Station in Suitland, MD, and installed and enabled operational equipment in support of curbing this emergent Soviet threat. Dr. Joseph V. Charyk, Under Secretary of the Air Force and the first Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, visited the Eastman Kodak Company during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He arrived by a private jet aircraft for a conference with Kodak Vice President Art Simmons and Ed Greene, General Manager of Special Programs. Under a shroud of secrecy, managers limited the audience for the meeting and did not retain documentation about the meeting. However, the authors remembered two action items that resulted from the event.

...

 

Several examples of TA’s help provided during the U-2 program’s operational years included activities that expanded across both the eastern and western hemispheres. In Taiwan, starting in the 1950s and continuing for many years thereafter, Kodak engineers and technicians assisted with equipment installation, training, film processing, duplication, Quality Control procedures, and staffing assignments. In 1962, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the IC urgently needed evaluation of imagery from U-2 flights in Washington from film processed locally rather than in Florida. At customer request, Kodak personnel moved film processors, printers, chemicals, and other support equipment from wherever they could find them to the Naval Reconnaissance and Technical Support Station in Suitland, Maryland. They had the facility staffed and operating within 48 hours, and the operation lasted until the crisis passed. Another operation where Kodak provided the help of TA had a tragic ending. Three Kodak employees—Ted Simons, Dick Moyer, and Wayne Koehler—perished in a helicopter accident when leaving their location at the U.S. Naval Base in Subic Bay, the Philippines. Regardless, this type of assistance continued throughout the operational period of the U-2 program and beyond. Kodak customized this assistance to meet the needs at each installation."

 

PDF available here:

 

https://imagery.geology.utah.gov/pages/view.php?ref=287048&search=!collection21482+&order_by=date&offset=1&restypes=&archive=&per_page=50&default_sort_direction=DESC&sort=DESC&context=Root&k=&curpos=&go=next&#

 

Bridgehead: Eastman Kodak Company's Covert Photoreconnaissance Film Processing Program

 

https://rbj.net/2012/11/23/undercover-covert-photographic-operations-center-existed-at-kodak-plant/

[Tom Gram]

4 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

I'm going to assume this is a honest mistake, Tom.  But your desperation to grab anything that will further your argument and your constant clamor for documentary evidence to support any view contrary to yours, regardless if that makes sense, is starting to wear thin.

The contract you cite is the *second* contract between Life and Zapruder on Nov 25.  That was when Life had returned to Zapruder to buy all rights to the film.  At that time Zapruder gave up the copy along with the original because Life had bought full rights to the film in perpetuity.

In the first contract of Nov 23, when Life was buying only limited rights to show stills in its magazine  Life was supposed to return the original to Zapruder in a few days in exchange for receiving the copy Zapruder had retained.  With the other two copies at the time ticketed for the SS and FBI that meant Zapruder was required to keep the third copy himself that Saturday under the first agreement.  Stolley did not take that copy with him.

 

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Pat asked if Zapruder’s family retained a first-day copy of the Z-film in their possession. The contract indicates that they did not. The copy was turned over to Life by Nov. 25th. 

I never said anything about Zapruder holding onto a copy prior to the 25th, nor do I see the relevance of that to anything I’ve written in this thread. 

Now that you mention it though, do you have the original contract?

And my concern is not so much the complete lack of documentary evidence for some of your key claims, it’s that you often present those claims as fact.

The Hawkeye Works theory - which is just a theory - is based entirely on 34 year old hearsay from a single witness with major credibility problems, yet you write about it as if it’s an established fact. Jeremy provided a good example: 

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?

We have no idea if the film was ever sent to Hawkeye Works. Even if he remembered the hearsay correctly from 34 years earlier, which is highly questionable, neither did McMahon. McMahon had zero personal knowledge of where the film was located prior to its arrival at NPIC. 

This is why I originally said the alteration angle is a dead end without credible evidence. If you went to a reasonable member of the public and told them that the only “evidence” the Z-film went to HW is sole-source decades old hearsay from a witness with admitted senile dementia, you’d likely get laughed out of the room. 

Imagine trying to argue Horne’s alteration case in court: 

Er.. I’m sorry your honor, but the unedited interviews with Brugioni are not available to the court. All we have is this movie and Doug Horne’s book. 

…still looking for those tapes. 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Pat asked if Zapruder’s family retained a first-day copy of the Z-film in their possession. The contract indicates that they did not. The copy was turned over to Life by Nov. 25th. 

I never said anything about Zapruder holding onto a copy prior to the 25th, nor do I see the relevance of that to anything I’ve written in this thread. 

Now that you mention it though, do you have the original contract?

And my concern is not so much the complete lack of documentary evidence for some of your key claims, it’s that you often present those claims as fact.

The Hawkeye Works theory - which is just a theory - is based entirely on 34 year old hearsay from a single witness with major credibility problems, yet you write about it as if it’s an established fact. Jeremy provided a good example: 

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?

We have no idea if the film was ever sent to Hawkeye Works. Even if he remembered the hearsay correctly from 34 years earlier, which is highly questionable, neither did McMahon. McMahon had zero personal knowledge of where the film was located prior to its arrival at NPIC. 

This is why I originally said the alteration angle is a dead end without credible evidence. If you went to a reasonable member of the public and told them that the only “evidence” the Z-film went to HW is sole-source decades old hearsay from a witness with admitted senile dementia, you’d likely get laughed out of the room. 

Imagine trying to argue Horne’s alteration case in court: 

Er.. I’m sorry your honor, but the unedited interviews with Brugioni are not available to the court. All we have is this movie and Doug Horne’s book. 

…still looking for those tapes. 

 Zapruder started with the original film and and three copies.  Everyone here agrees he sold limited rights to the original to Life Saturday morning.  Two of the copies went to the SS and FBI.  The original film was sent to Chicago.  Zapruder kept the third copy under the original agreement of Nov 23 in order to exchange it in a few days for the original Life was supposed to return to him.

Initially Jeremy disagreed.  He thought Stolley had sent the third copy to Chicago with the original.  He has since realized his mistake.

There never was a mystery about what happened to the third copy Zapruder had kept for when Life returned with a new deal. Life gave Zapruder another $1 million for both the full rights to the film in perpetuity and the copy Zapruder had retained, *as the terms you cited from the Nov 25 agreement specify*.  Life knew why they wanted Zapruder's copy in addition to the full rights to the original.   

Life then buried the film as a film for 12 years until a bootleg copy appeared on TV.  Their job of hiding the film was over. and they gave the film you think was the original back to Zapruder for $1.  Btw, Jeremy tried to explain why Life as a news org. would bury the film showing the crime of the century, but was singularly unconvincing.  Why don't you give it a shot?

It's important to be clear about what happened to the original film that Saturday because it establishes the circumstances for the decision that had to be made about who would have priority access to it--Life or the President and the CIA?  You understand that others besides Life wanted to use the original film that Saturday for their own purposes?

There never was a mystery about what happened to the three copies that weekend.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

You're looking for documents from the CIA that would verify the existence of HW in 1963, and that show that the Zapruder film was taken there Sunday morning for something??!!

I'm looking for any positive, non-hearsay evidence to support Roger's claim that the original Zapruder film was taken to Hawkeye Works on the weekend of the assassination. Since Roger is claiming that this event happened, the burden of proof is on him to support his claim with objectively verifiable evidence (not speculation).

I'm pointing out that the evidence Roger has provided is nowhere near sufficient to allow us to believe that this event happened. Roger's evidence consists solely of a recollection, from several decades later, by one person who had no direct experience of such an event and who admitted that his memory wasn't reliable. I'm sure Roger can see why this 'evidence' is worthless.

Roger keeps stating that the CIA wouldn't allow any documentation to survive. Well, that's Roger's problem, not mine. He's the one who needs to find evidence to support his claim. If he can't get it from one source, he needs to do some research and get it from another source. If, as appears to be the case, there simply is no good evidence to support his claim, he should admit that his claim is worthless and is based on nothing more than speculation.

Quote

It's time you addressed why you think Life would have prevailed in that Saturday discussion about who should get to use the original film.

What Saturday discussion? Again with the speculating! If Roger is claiming that some sort of discussion took place somewhere, he needs to provide positive evidence to show that this hypothetical discussion did actually take place. Without such evidence, Roger is just making stuff up.

Quote

Initially Jeremy disagreed.  He thought Stolley had sent the third copy to Chicago with the original.  He has since realized his mistake.

I cited evidence (not speculation) to support my claim: Stolley's own account in Esquire magazine, in which he stated that he took the third copy with him. Later, Chris provided other accounts which implied that Stolley's Esquire account was mistaken. So I changed my mind in response to a change in the evidence, which is what every reasonable person should do.

As I pointed out at the time, the location of Zapruder's first-day copy can help us to work out which version of the film turned up at NPIC in Washington on the Saturday. If Zapruder's copy had been sent to Life in Chicago, it's conceivable that the original could have ended up 600 miles away at the NPIC in Washington, as Roger speculates.

But since we have evidence (not speculation) that Zapruder's copy remained in Dallas over the weekend, we can conclude that the film Life used in Chicago over the weekend must have been the original Zapruder film. That's because we have evidence (not speculation) about the location of the other two first-day copies at the time of the NPIC event. Both of them were in Washington, where the NPIC was located. The Secret Service copy arrived early on the Saturday morning, and the FBI copy at some point that evening.

Based on all the verifiable evidence we have, the only plausible candidate for the film at NPIC is the Secret Service copy which had arrived in Washington early on the Saturday.

Now, does Roger have anything to offer other than speculation? If not, that's the end of the matter, isn't it?

[Roger Odisio]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

I'm looking for any positive, non-hearsay evidence to support Roger's claim that the original Zapruder film was taken to Hawkeye Works on the weekend of the assassination. Since Roger is claiming that this event happened, the burden of proof is on him to support his claim with objectively verifiable evidence (not speculation).

I'm pointing out that the evidence Roger has provided is nowhere near sufficient to allow us to believe that this event happened. Roger's evidence consists solely of a recollection, from several decades later, by one person who had no direct experience of such an event and who admitted that his memory wasn't reliable. I'm sure Roger can see why this 'evidence' is worthless.

Roger keeps stating that the CIA wouldn't allow any documentation to survive. Well, that's Roger's problem, not mine. He's the one who needs to find evidence to support his claim. If he can't get it from one source, he needs to do some research and get it from another source. If, as appears to be the case, there simply is no good evidence to support his claim, he should admit that his claim is worthless and is based on nothing more than speculation.

What Saturday discussion? Again with the speculating! If Roger is claiming that some sort of discussion took place somewhere, he needs to provide positive evidence to show that this hypothetical discussion did actually take place. Without such evidence, Roger is just making stuff up.

I cited evidence (not speculation) to support my claim: Stolley's own account in Esquire magazine, in which he stated that he took the third copy with him. Later, Chris provided other accounts which implied that Stolley's Esquire account was mistaken. So I changed my mind in response to a change in the evidence, which is what every reasonable person should do.

As I pointed out at the time, the location of Zapruder's first-day copy can help us to work out which version of the film turned up at NPIC in Washington on the Saturday. If Zapruder's copy had been sent to Life in Chicago, it's conceivable that the original could have ended up 600 miles away at the NPIC in Washington, as Roger speculates.

But since we have evidence (not speculation) that Zapruder's copy remained in Dallas over the weekend, we can conclude that the film Life used in Chicago over the weekend must have been the original Zapruder film. That's because we have evidence (not speculation) about the location of the other two first-day copies at the time of the NPIC event. Both of them were in Washington, where the NPIC was located. The Secret Service copy arrived early on the Saturday morning, and the FBI copy at some point that evening.

Based on all the verifiable evidence we have, the only plausible candidate for the film at NPIC is the Secret Service copy which had arrived in Washington early on the Saturday.

Now, does Roger have anything to offer other than speculation? If not, that's the end of the matter, isn't it?

It is *not* speculation that,

 

* The new president and the director of the CIA, in their official capacities, had a keen interest in seeing what the Z film showed.  The Oswald lone assassin story had already  gone out the day of the murder.  For example, a message from the White House situation room to officials coming back to DC had fingered Oswald.  It was crucial that Johnson and McCone find out if the Z film, now known to the world, contradicted their story, and if so, to what extent.

 

*  These top officials were aware that Life magazine had won a bid for limited rights to the film Saturday morning.  And that Life had taken the original film from Zapruder that morning, flown it to Chicago, and was planning to show stills from it in its next issue. One more reason for them to find out quickly what the film showed.

 

* For the officials to clearly see for themselves what the film showed, it would be necessary to make briefing boards from enlargements of key frames.  Holding a film strip up to the light wouldn't do it.

 

* That process required using the original film to avoid losing clarity if they used a copy.

 

* Moreover, if the film contradicted their Oswald story, as at least some officials suspected or knew, it would make no sense to try to conceal that using a copy while Life retained the original and published stills from it a few days later.

 

* At that point on Saturday the three copies Zapruder had made were held by him, the SS, and FBI.  The latter two agencies presented no problem if the original had to be altered.  But in that case they would have to deal with Zapruder about his copy of the original.

 

* So the question that Saturday was straightforward.  Who should have priority access to the use of the original film--Life or the govt officials? (incredibly you claim there is no evidence this was an issue or that it was discussed by anyone.  One of the silliest uses of your "no evidence" mantras).

 

*  It was an easy question to resolve.  Life's publisher, CD Jackson had a long history of working for the CIA on certain projects.  He was well versed in the national security concerns underlying govt officials' need for use of the original film.  If such a discussion was even necessary.

 

*  There was plenty of time that Saturday from when the original film arrived in Chicago, to divert it to the NPIC before Brugioni was ready to make briefing boards that night.

 

* Brugioni said his boss, Art Lundahl,  had received a call that Saturday from McCone ordering the NPIC lab to do briefing boards.  

 

* When the boards were finished early Sunday morning, Lundahll took them, along with the notes Brugioni had prepared, to brief McCone.  Who then briefed Johnson.

 

*  At that point both men had gotten their answer to whether the Z film contradicted their story.

 

*  Life then went back to Zapruder and tore up the original deal they had with him. To be replaced by:  Life would pay Zapruder an additional $1 million in installments in return for the full rights to the film in perpetuity, *and* for the copy of the original film that Zapruder had kept.  All three of the copies of the original film were now accounted for. 

 

* Life then buried the film as a film from public view for 12 years.  Until a bootleg copy was shown on TV.  

 

*  Life's job of hiding the film was over.  It gave the film back to Zapruder for $1.

 

All through this discussion, Jeremy, you have avoided responding in substance to these points.  Instead you have sought refuge in your mantra--where is my documentary evidence for that?  How did I know the CIA did that? 

 

Your cramped view of what constitutes research illustrates why, 60 years later, so little progress has been made on the central questions of who did it and why.  According to you a point is not legit to consider unless it can be documented.  Which of course is particular nonsense, and damaging to research, when the topic is the CIA--what it did or didn't do.  You must know that. 

 

In making your mistaken claim that Stolley had taken a copy of the Z film, along with the original, to Chicago you cited the kind of evidence you keep asking me for.  Oops.  It turns evidence so used must be reliable.  Not just any will do.   

 

It's also important not to disingenuously insist on evidence where you have reason to know there will be none.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 minute ago, Roger Odisio said:

According to you a point is not legit to consider unless it can be documented.  Which of course is particular nonsense, and damaging to research, when the topic is the CIA--what it did or didn't do. 

Nobody ever said the point couldn't be "considered." But that consideration falls apart in the absence of any ACTUAL evidence. Not speculation, not "maybe this happened" and not your personal belief that it "was crucial that Johnson and McCone find out if the Z film, now known to the world, contradicted their story, and if so, to what extent." That's not EVIDENCE.

[Roger Odisio]

17 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Nobody ever said the point couldn't be "considered." But that consideration falls apart in the absence of any ACTUAL evidence. Not speculation, not "maybe this happened" and not your personal belief that it "was crucial that Johnson and McCone find out if the Z film, now known to the world, contradicted their story, and if so, to what extent." That's not EVIDENCE.

So the idea that Johnson and McCone had a keen interest in finding out what the Z film showed is just my personal opinion that falls apart in the absence of actual evidence of it (whatever form you imagine that "evidence" would take).  Why don't you explain why they didn't care what it showed?  Or why briefing boards were made for them to show what the film captured.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

So the idea that Johnson and McCone had a keen interest in finding out what the Z film showed is just my personal opinion that falls apart in the absence of actual evidence of it (whatever form you imagine that "evidence" would take).  Why don't you explain why they didn't care what it showed?  Or why briefing boards were made for them to show what the film captured.

No, the idea that they may have had a "keen interest" in no way means the Zapruder film was altered.