The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In case Roger genuinely can't see why his evidence-free speculation is worthless, let me offer an analogy.

1. People have spent the best part of half a century pointing out anomalies in the moon-landings photographs.
2. Even though nothing approaching proof of forgery has been found, people wouldn't have spent that long searching for anomalies unless the photos had been faked in some way.
3. Clearly the moon landings didn't happen, and the photos are fakes.
4. The only official body that could have forged the moon-landings photographs is NASA.
5. We know when and where NASA forged the photographs, because some guy was interviewed by a moon-landings denier decades later, and the guy recalled that he had heard from someone else that the photos were forged at NASA's top-secret photo-forging plant. And this guy is thoroughly believable because he admitted that he was a recovering alcoholic and drug-addict and that his memory was unreliable.
6. Officials at NASA had every reason to cover up their forgery of those photographs at the top-secret plant disclosed by the guy with the memory problems.
7. The fact that no evidence exists of NASA's involvement in the forgery, proves that NASA did in fact destroy that evidence.
8. It's silly to insist on seeing evidence that NASA officials discussed forging the moon-landings photographs! They would have destroyed any such evidence!
9. Therefore, speculation will do, and I can make up any story I like!

And that's not even to mention that...

10. An 80 year-old former NASA employee recalled seeing some photos in which the moon was more rugged than it is in the currently-available  photos.

And 

11. Those pushing (and selling) that the moon-landing was faked use his recollection of seeing slightly different photos to support a theory holding that what he actually saw was a smooth marble floor. 

 

When his recollections--along with their response to his recollections--suggests a different scenario entirely... That it's all a bunch of nonsense.

 

[Roger Odisio]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

Followed by lots and lots of speculation.

The reason I claimed that there is no evidence that any such discussion took place is that Roger has provided no actual, verifiable, documentary evidence that any such discussion took place.

If Roger doesn't want to do any research, to try to dig out any relevant evidence, maybe we should ask why Douglas Horne, originator of the speculative Hawkeye Works notion, appears to have done no such research himself.

Are there any official records, such as memos or phone call transcriptions, in which high-ranking officials discuss the Zapruder film at all on the Saturday? What about memoirs written by officials? Oral history interviews? Anything?

If any such records exist, do they give us any reason to suspect that anyone in authority, prior to the NPIC event on the Saturday, considered that the Zapruder film might be a serious obstacle to the 'Oswald did it' explanation?

In the absence of any such evidence, there is no reason to suppose that the examination of a version of the Zapruder film on the Saturday was motivated by any need to impose the 'Oswald did it' explanation.

Have you forgotten, Jeremy?  Early in this discussion, when you were claiming the Z film *couldn't* have been altered, you said one reason was because the extant film still contained evidence that contradicted the Oswald story.  That reason was nonsense.  Failure to conceal all things  incriminating does not mean alteration wasn't tried.  But it is true the extant film contains both evidence of alteration and things that contradict the Oswald story.  I have avoided discussing those things in this thead because they are talked about a lot in other threads.  Instead I have tried to discern the logic of what happened.

Now you're back contradicting your own point.  Absent the "evidence" you keep disingenuously calling for, you say there is no reason to suspect "anyone in authority"  (read Johnson and the CIA, the high officials responsible for determining what happened who ordered the boards)  had any reason to suspect the Z film contradicted their Oswald story.  I assume you accept the fact that it was these same officials who had already circulated the Oswald story.  E.g., the messages from the White House Situation Room the day of the murder to officials coming back to DC that fingered Oswald as the lone assassin.

I assume you understand and accept as fact that Kennedy was killed by multiple shooters from different directions and that the Z film must have captured that.  Which would of course contradict the Oswald story.  If you don't accept that please say so. 

Yet somehow you now claim that there is no reason to think the Saturday briefing boards prepared for these authorities (Brugioni's boards--are you now admitting they once existed?) were motivated by a need to see if the Z film contradicted their Oswald story and if so to what extent.   

If that's not the reason, is there another, more logical reason for Johnson and the CIA to have ordered the boards? You don't say.

Instead you rely once again on the claim that, all logic aside, there is no *documentary* reason to suppose seeing what the Z film showed about their Oswald story is what motivated doing the boards.  By which you mean the CIA has produced no documents that verify why they ordered the boards to be made.  The myopia underlying this reasoning is astonishing.

 

  

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

And if there was nothing sinister about the NPIC event on the Saturday, there is no reason to take seriously the notion that anything at all happened at Hawkeye Works on the Sunday.

Until Roger, or Horne, or anyone else, presents some verifiable documentary evidence that the examination of the Zapruder film on the Saturday was part of a plan to impose the 'Oswald did it' explanation, we are left with a perfectly plausible scenario: the film taken to NPIC on the Saturday was the Secret Service's first-day copy which had arrived in Washington that morning.

There is nothing plausible about accepting that the SS copy was used for the boards at NPIC unless your claim is first accepted that the purpose of doing the boards was not to find out if the film contradicted their Oswald story, but something else (that maybe some day you'll get around to explaining).  If, however,  the purpose of doing the boards was to find out to what extent the Z film contradicted their Oswald story, it would make no sense to have used a copy for the boards while letting Life publish stills from the original in their magazine.  If the boards showed contradiction altering or destroying the copy you claim was used would make no sense.  They would be left without a possible remedy.  That would require using the original for the boards and if a problem was found, deal with it, while rounding up all copies made from the original. 

Which is what they did.  The film was altered and Life went back to Zapruder to buy the remaining copy he had which was made from the original.  It was the last vestige of what the original Z film showed..  The other two copies were held by the SS and FBI.   

[Sandy Larsen]

Here's the bottom line:

We know that there are alterations in the Z film because:

1. Not a single witness to Kennedy's head wound saw the gaping wound centered on Kennedy's right temple as can be seen in the Z film. This in spite of the fact that the number of corroborating head-wound witnesses is numerous.
2. The color-logarithmic copy of the Z film clearly shows a painted-on black area on the back of Kennedy's head after frame 313, the edges of which are obviously unnatural in some of the frames.

We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered.

However, it doesn't hurt to theorize on how the alterations were made, and what other alterations were made.

Douglas Horne has a perfectly viable theory as to how the alterations were made. Roger Odisio and Keven Hofeling have been defending Horne's theory.

Jeremy Bojczuk, Tom Gram, and others have been arguing against Horne's theory. The most repeated argument I've seen is that the theory includes some speculation, and that that somehow invalidates the argument.

The truth is, ALL theories include speculation. Without any speculation, they wouldn't be theories at all but rather statements of fact.

In science, once someone has posited a theory, it is incumbent on the critics of the theory to prove it wrong. If they show that something in the theory cannot be, then it is incumbent on the adherents of the theory to correct the theory accordingly.

After each such step, adherents of the theory should reevaluate the strength of the theory. The strength of a theory is determined roughly by what percentage of it's data points is backed by evidence and not speculation.

 

Horne's theory is the only one I know of that can explain the Z-film alterations we are certain of. Speculation isn't great, but there certainly is some. McMahon's testimony isn't ironclad, but it is more likely to be true than not, given that it gives a reasonable outcome and not some random gibberish.

I believe that Horne's theory is probably correct or close to it.

I believe that most, if not all, researchers who strongly disagree with Horne's theory are probably anti-alterationists.

 

Edited July 4 by Sandy Larsen

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy hit the nail on the head: the prior issue to this entire discussion is a question as simple in formulation as it is seemingly extraordinarily difficult to resolve conclusively: is there conclusive evidence--not possibility, not could-be, not maybe, but conclusive, unambiguous evidence--that the existing Zapruder film copy generations have been altered or tampered with in their origin.

If there IS--"if"--conclusive evidence of early-origin tampering or alteration in the film--THEN, since it did happen (as proven by the conclusive evidence that it did), one looks to find the when, where, how, and why. It would have to have been about the first weekend, and as Jeremy admits, nearly anything in the end is possible that is not specifically airtight excluded--it could be some form of this Hawkeye and Brugioni story. Doesn't matter that there is not documentary evidence, or positive evidence for it from that weekend, IF it is conclusive on film examination grounds that there WAS deception/alteration done on that film at the origin of today's copies.

But how are questions of allegations of tampering or forgery on something of this nature to be determined? What is the correct method to find a correct answer to the question?

Many probably won't like this but this is the only best-practices workable and reasonable method: via peer-review of specialists in the relevant fields of expertise, in the scientific journals publication process and system.

But in the case of the Zapruder film, there are sweeping claims--I have no idea whether any might be true or not--but what I can see is none have been vetted through published peer review in any substantial way. To claim there are experts with evidence unpublished for decades in their hip pockets which they have still not published--but trust them, they say they have it--this is a recipe for gullibility. 

I think most in the non-alteration camp would be open to proof of alteration of Zapruder if proof were shown in a form, not sufficient to convince a lay or amateur reader (like most of us reading this), but sufficient to persuade experts in the relevant fields who will state for the record that they are convinced. I don't see that happening in any significant way. It comes down to a question and judgment of evidence and proof.

With that in mind, I would like to end with a personal specific question on one alteration allegation claim. It is the claim that the existing Zapruder film shows the driver, Greer, turning his head back and forward too rapidly beyond human ability to move that fast. 

I have seen that allegation many times. Can Jeremy or anyone who is more up to speed on these issues, direct to a refutation or rebuttal of that allegation, if it has been rebutted or refuted? Or if not, give a brief, one-paragraph, version of a rebuttal here? (Without meaning to derail this thread?) I would appreciate it (I assume a few others listening in might too)--thanks.

Edited July 4 by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Here's the bottom line:

We know that there are alterations in the F film because:

1. Not a single witness to Kennedy's head wound saw the gaping wound centered on Kennedy's right temple as can be seen in the Z film. This in spite of the fact that the number of corroborating head-wound witnesses is numerous.
2. The color-logarithmic copy of the Z film clearly shows a painted-on black area on the back of Kennedy's head after frame 313, the edges of which are obviously unnatural in some of the frames.

We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered.

However, it doesn't hurt to theorize on how the alterations were made, and what other alterations were made.

Douglas Horne has a perfectly viable theory as to how the alterations were made. Roger Odisio and Keven Hofeling have been defending Horne's theory.

Jeremy Bojczuk, Tom Gram, and others have been arguing against Horne's theory. The most repeated argument I've seen is that the theory includes some speculation, and that that somehow invalidates the argument.

The truth is, ALL theories include speculation. Without any speculation, they wouldn't be theories at all but rather statements of fact.

In science, once someone has posited a theory, it is incumbent on the critics of the theory to prove it wrong. If they show that something in the theory cannot be, then it is incumbent on the adherents of the theory to correct the theory accordingly.

After each such step, adherents of the theory should reevaluate the strength of the theory. The strength of a theory is determined roughly by what percentage of it's data points is backed by evidence and not speculation.

 

Horne's theory is the only one I know of that can explain the Z-film alterations we are certain of. Speculation isn't great, but there certainly is some. McMahon's testimony isn't ironclad, but it is more likely to be true than not, given that it gives a reasonable outcome and not some random gibberish.

I believe that Horne's theory is probably correct or close to it.

I believe that most, if not all, researchers who strongly disagree with Horne's theory are probably anti-alterationists.

 

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Have you forgotten, Jeremy?  Early in this discussion, when you were claiming the Z film *couldn't* have been altered, you said one reason was because the extant film still contained evidence that contradicted the Oswald story.  That reason was nonsense.  Failure to conceal all things  incriminating does not mean alteration wasn't tried.  But it is true the extant film contains both evidence of alteration and things that contradict the Oswald story.  I have avoided discussing those things in this thead because they are talked about a lot in other threads.  Instead I have tried to discern the logic of what happened.

Now you're back contradicting your own point.  Absent the "evidence" you keep disingenuously calling for, you say there is no reason to suspect "anyone in authority"  (read Johnson and the CIA, the high officials responsible for determining what happened who ordered the boards)  had any reason to suspect the Z film contradicted their Oswald story.  I assume you accept the fact that it was these same officials who had already circulated the Oswald story.  E.g., the messages from the White House Situation Room the day of the murder to officials coming back to DC that fingered Oswald as the lone assassin.

I assume you understand and accept as fact that Kennedy was killed by multiple shooters from different directions and that the Z film must have captured that.  Which would of course contradict the Oswald story.  If you don't accept that please say so. 

Yet somehow you now claim that there is no reason to think the Saturday briefing boards prepared for these authorities (Brugioni's boards--are you now admitting they once existed?) were motivated by a need to see if the Z film contradicted their Oswald story and if so to what extent.   

If that's not the reason, is there another, more logical reason for Johnson and the CIA to have ordered the boards? You don't say.

Instead you rely once again on the claim that, all logic aside, there is no *documentary* reason to suppose seeing what the Z film showed about their Oswald story is what motivated doing the boards.  By which you mean the CIA has produced no documents that verify why they ordered the boards to be made.  The myopia underlying this reasoning is astonishing.

 

  

There is nothing plausible about accepting that the SS copy was used for the boards at NPIC unless your claim is first accepted that the purpose of doing the boards was not to find out if the film contradicted their Oswald story, but something else (that maybe some day you'll get around to explaining).  If, however,  the purpose of doing the boards was to find out to what extent the Z film contradicted their Oswald story, it would make no sense to have used a copy for the boards while letting Life publish stills from the original in their magazine.  If the boards showed contradiction altering or destroying the copy you claim was used would make no sense.  They would be left without a possible remedy.  That would require using the original for the boards and if a problem was found, deal with it, while rounding up all copies made from the original. 

Which is what they did.  The film was altered and Life went back to Zapruder to buy the remaining copy he had which was made from the original.  It was the last vestige of what the original Z film showed..  The other two copies were held by the SS and FBI.   

Yes the government was interested in the Z-film. That’s why copies were made and given to the SS and FBI. 

If you want anyone to believe there was some side discussion about obtaining and analyzing the original Z-film that weekend, you need to produce some actual evidence.

Otherwise Jeremy is right. Your argument is pure speculation and assumptions. You’ll never convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. 

I will give you a lead. Trask (supposedly) quotes this 11/23 FBI memo in his book. DeLoach seems to have been under the impression that the SS obtained the original film from Zapruder and subsequently turned it over to the FBI. There’s even an alleged quote from Zapruder saying “the FBI has this film and will not give it back to me”. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62256#relPageId=43

It looks like Shanklin was the primary source for the info in this memo. Shanklin told DeLoach that “the Secret Service had obtained the film from Zapruder and had turned it over to us late last night”, but apparently he didn’t know it was a copy. 

Here’s the memo that transmitted the film to the FBI lab that same day:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264#relPageId=94

There are several interesting tidbits in the DeLoach memo you could follow up on, like the alleged press statement from Zapruder, but the significance to your “discussion” theory IMO is how DeLoach closes the memo: 

I informed Guthman of the Department regarding this matter and told him that the Secret Service had first obtained the film and then turned it over to us. I told Guthman also that despite the pressure that was being put on by the news outlets, this matter would have to be treated strictly as evidence and later on a determination would be made as to whether the film would be given back to Zapruder or not. 

So even though it looks like DeLoach was working from erroneous information, this is actual documentary evidence that high-level officials in the FBI and Justice Department were in discussions about retaining the original Zapruder film as evidence on the 23rd. 

If I were making the “discussion” argument, I’d also include what happened with the WC. Zapruder told the FBI that the 16mm original was “much clearer” than the 8mm copies:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62284#relPageId=21

When the WC saw this FBI report, they reached out to Life to obtain the original film for microscopic study, or something like that, because they thought the original would be more valuable as evidence. I don’t have the internal WC memo handy but it’s in the same google drive link I posted a few comments back with the Life contract. 

You could argue that Zapruder may have said the same thing the weekend of the assassination after viewing the copies; and there may have been a similar reaction by the SS, FBI, etc. 

My point is it is a lot more convincing to make your case with actual research and evidence vs. some variation of “this happened cause I said so”. If you want to get the original Z-film to Washington by Saturday night, repeating the same assumption-filled mantra over and over again isn’t really going to cut it.

There is no smoking gun, but if there’s an actual, evidence-based circumstantial case to be made, make it. Do the legwork: post the documents and show us the discrepancies in the official story.

Above all, stop presenting your assumptions and beliefs as fact. If the evidence is ambiguous, acknowledge that you might be wrong, and provide plausible alternatives.

You have mentioned Zapruder’s original contract a few times now. Do we have that contract? What is the earliest document describing the sale and transmittal of the original Z-film to Life? 

Edited July 3 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

But how are questions of allegations of tampering or forgery on something of this nature to be determined? What is the correct method to find a correct answer to the question?

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Many probably won't like this but this is the only best-practices workable and reasonable method: via peer-review of specialists in the relevant fields of expertise, in the scientific journals publication process and system.

 

Greg,

There were more than 40 witnesses who said they saw a gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head, and none who said they saw such a wound on Kennedy's right temple -- which is what we see in the extant Z film.

What kind of specialists and peer-reviewed journalists do you think we need to determine that the back of the head is not the same place as the right temple?

 

Edited July 4 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Not a single witness to Kennedy's head wound saw the gaping wound centered on Kennedy's right temple as can be seen in the Z film. This in spite of the fact that the number of corroborating head-wound witnesses is numerous.

 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

All of these people, with the exception of Dr. Humes, is pointing to an entrance wound. Not to the gaping exit wound we see in the Z film.

Since Dr. Humes is the man who fraudulently moved the wound location at the autopsy, his testimony isn't credible.

 

Edited July 4 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Gram]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

All of these people, with the exception of Dr. Humes, is pointing to an entrance wound. Not to the gaping exit wound we see in the Z film.

Since Dr. Humes is the man who fraudulently moved the wound location at the autopsy, his testimony isn't credible.

 

You could make that argument with Kilduff, or maybe Bill Newman, but you honestly believe that Gayle and especially Zapruder are pointing out gigantic entrance wounds on the side of the head? 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

You could make that argument with Kilduff, or maybe Bill Newman, but you honestly believe that Gayle and especially Zapruder are pointing out gigantic entrance wounds on the side of the head? 

 

I don't believe that any of them are pointing out a gigantic wound. Maybe a small wound with a plume of blood.

You don't actually believe yourself that there was a gigantic wound near Kennedy's temple, do you?

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

Early in this discussion, when you were claiming the Z film *couldn't* have been altered, you said one reason was because the extant film still contained evidence that contradicted the Oswald story. ... Now you're back contradicting your own point. ... you say there is no reason to suspect "anyone in authority"  (read Johnson and the CIA ...) had any reason to suspect the Z film contradicted their Oswald story.

Roger's argument seems to be that "Johnson and the CIA" had decided, either (a) immediately after the assassination or (b) even before the assassination, to impose the 'Oswald did it' interpretation, and that the only reason "Johnson and the CIA" wanted briefing boards prepared was to see whether the Zapruder film contradicted the interpretation they had already decided to impose.

If I've got that wrong, I'd be happy to be corrected. If I've got that right, Roger needs to produce some documentary evidence that "Johnson and the CIA" did in fact decide on that interpretation as early as Roger seems to be claiming.

If Roger believes that the 'Oswald did it' interpretation was an integral part of the plot, he needs to demonstrate why "Johnson and the CIA" decided to have JFK assassinated in broad daylight, in front of hundreds of spectators, any number of whom would have been carrying cameras and could be expected to capture images containing evidence of more than one gunman.

Personally, if I were planning a public assassination using more than one gunman, in which evidence of more than one gunman was likely to be recorded on film, it would be because I wanted the assassination to look like a conspiracy rather than the act of one gunman.

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

We know that there are alterations in the Z film ... We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered.

I've pointed out before that Sandy's idea of what constitutes proof is not what most people would think of as proof. I won't embarrass Sandy by giving a link to his claimed "proof that the Zapruder and/or Nix film was altered", which was debunked just a few minutes after he posted it. Oh, well, if you insist: 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27679-possibly-the-easiest-to-understand-proof-that-the-zapruder-andor-nix-film-was-altered/

Greg Doudna writes:

Quote

I think most in the non-alteration camp would be open to proof of alteration of Zapruder if proof were shown in a form, not sufficient to convince a lay or amateur reader (like most of us reading this), but sufficient to persuade experts in the relevant fields who will state for the record that they are convinced. 

I'd be happy to accept that the film was altered if the case for alteration were submitted to an appropriate scholarly journal, subjected to peer review, and approved by independent experts with appropriate qualifications. As far as I'm aware, this has not yet happened. In fact, as far as I'm aware, no-one who claims alteration has even bothered to submit an article to a reputable journal.

Quote

I would like to end with a personal specific question on one alteration allegation claim. It is the claim that the existing Zapruder film shows the driver, Greer, turning his head back and forward too rapidly beyond human ability to move that fast.

Of course, it's up to the person making the claim to provide sufficient evidence to support that claim. Until they do so, we shouldn't believe the claim. That appears to be the situation we're in with the 'Greer turned his head too fast' claim. Nevertheless, I've found this apparent rebuttal online, in which someone claims to have done what Greer appears to have done:

https://jfkassassination.quora.com/Some-have-argued-that-Agent-Greer-s-head-swiveled-impossibly-fast-in-F315-317-Some-say-that-his-head-turned-from-150-l

This page contains links to a number of articles which refute various alteration claims:

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I won't embarrass Sandy by giving a link to his claimed "proof that the Zapruder and/or Nix film was altered", which was debunked just a few minutes after he posted it. Oh, well, if you insist: 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27679-possibly-the-easiest-to-understand-proof-that-the-zapruder-andor-nix-film-was-altered/

 

This is what Jeremy does if he can't win an argument. He attacks his opponent.

 

Edited July 4 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Scally]

There was one good documented reason why the Secret Service sent their copy of the Zapruder film to NPIC on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963 - they couldn't create prints of individual frames from a movie film! FWIW, the following excerpt is from an interview by Michele Combs of the ARRB with Max Phillips, the Secret Service agent in Dallas who received the Zapruder film on the evening of the assassination, and sent it directly to Chief Rowley in Washington. The interview took place at Phillips' home in California on September 2, 1997 :

Combs:     Did the Secret Service have the capability in 1963 to develop still photographs from a motion picture? 

Phillips:     No. 

Combs:     Could they have developed the frames? 

Phillips:     No. 

Combs:     No? 

Phillips:     No. You have to realize, we were extremely small. Our resources were just, ah, almost nothing. 

Combs:     Where would the Secret Service have gone to have a motion picture developed? 

Phillips:     Immediately? 

Combs:     Uh-huh, or have still frames made? 

Phillips:     CIA. 

Combs:     CIA? 

Phillips:     CIA, immediately. We would have gone to the CIA, or the FBI. But, I – If it had – If Robert I. Bouck [Phillips' immediate supervisor] was involved in it, he would have gone to the CIA. 

Combs:     Why is that? 

Phillips:     Because he had a lot of, ah, connections at the CIA. 

Combs:     Do you know where he went within the CIA to have them developed? 

Phillips:     Well, I – well all I know is that we worked with counterintelligence in the CIA, but I don’t know if he would have gone there. This is only, you know, this is off the top of my head. 

Combs:     Sure. But PRS worked with counterintelligence in the CIA? 

Phillips:     Oh, yeah. 

Combs:     As a group? 

Phillips:     Yes, yes. 

Combs:     But Bouck had connections within other parts of the CIA as well? 

Phillips:     Oh, I would say so, I would say so! 

Combs:     Do you know if he would have taken them to the (unintelligible) photo, if that’s where he would go to have --- 

Phillips:     I don’t even know if that existed, if they were the ones, -- we, we didn’t even have satellites back then. I don’t know, but knowing Bouck, I mean, he would have made a couple of phone calls and he would have gone right to the source and if that was the – I mean, he would have done the same thing I would have done. If I had something, I wanted it done immediately, I would have called my contacts at CIA and said, “We can’t do it but so and so can…” you know how Washington works – 

Edited July 4 by Chris Scally
Quoted text italicized, for ease of reading

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

There was one good documented reason why the Secret Service sent their copy of the Zapruder film to NPIC on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963 - they couldn't create prints of individual frames from a movie film! FWIW, the following excerpt is from an interview by Michele Combs of the ARRB with Max Phillips, the Secret Service agent in Dallas who received the Zapruder film on the evening of the assassination, and sent it directly to Chief Rowley in Washington. The interview took place at Phillips' home in California on September 2, 1997 :

Combs:     Did the Secret Service have the capability in 1963 to develop still photographs from a motion picture? 

Phillips:     No. 

Combs:     Could they have developed the frames? 

Phillips:     No. 

Combs:     No? 

Phillips:     No. You have to realize, we were extremely small. Our resources were just, ah, almost nothing. 

Combs:     Where would the Secret Service have gone to have a motion picture developed? 

Phillips:     Immediately? 

Combs:     Uh-huh, or have still frames made? 

Phillips:     CIA. 

Combs:     CIA? 

Phillips:     CIA, immediately. We would have gone to the CIA, or the FBI. But, I – If it had – If Robert I. Bouck [Phillips' immediate supervisor] was involved in it, he would have gone to the CIA. 

Combs:     Why is that? 

Phillips:     Because he had a lot of, ah, connections at the CIA. 

Combs:     Do you know where he went within the CIA to have them developed? 

Phillips:     Well, I – well all I know is that we worked with counterintelligence in the CIA, but I don’t know if he would have gone there. This is only, you know, this is off the top of my head. 

Combs:     Sure. But PRS worked with counterintelligence in the CIA? 

Phillips:     Oh, yeah. 

Combs:     As a group? 

Phillips:     Yes, yes. 

Combs:     But Bouck had connections within other parts of the CIA as well? 

Phillips:     Oh, I would say so, I would say so! 

Combs:     Do you know if he would have taken them to the (unintelligible) photo, if that’s where he would go to have --- 

Phillips:     I don’t even know if that existed, if they were the ones, -- we, we didn’t even have satellites back then. I don’t know, but knowing Bouck, I mean, he would have made a couple of phone calls and he would have gone right to the source and if that was the – I mean, he would have done the same thing I would have done. If I had something, I wanted it done immediately, I would have called my contacts at CIA and said, “We can’t do it but so and so can…” you know how Washington works – 

Chris,

What you offer here is an explanation of why the SS would have been willing to send its copy of the Z film to the CIA's lab at the NPIC that Saturday.  If that's what the CIA wanted.

I think it's pretty clear, however, that the CIA preferred to use the original film currently held by Life magazine to make its briefing boards.  Not only because the original was a superior source, but, as I explained, having the original allowed them the options of dealing with any problems to their Oswald story exposed by the original film. 

Using a copy to make the boards while Life still had the original would have foreclosed any attempts to alter that copy, if that is all they had.  Which is one reason Jeremy seized on the idea that the CIA had only the SS's copy to use to make its boards.

[Roger Odisio]

17 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Yes the government was interested in the Z-film. That’s why copies were made and given to the SS and FBI. 

I What is the earliest document describing the sale and transmittal of the original Z-film to Life? 

Tom:  Yes the government was interested in the Z-film. That’s why copies were made and given to the SS and FBI. 

 

RO:  Classic off-topic diversion.  I didn't say "the government", Tom.  I said the two persons in the government with the official responsibility to find out what happened--the new president and the director of the CIA--had, by definition, the most interest in what the Z film showed.  It was already clear the Z film was a crucial record of the murder. They had the clearest and most urgent need to know what it showed.

 

McCone ordered Lundahl to have briefing boards done *for him* (not the SS or FBI) that Saturday night.  When they were finished Lundahl briefed McCone about what they showed.  McCone then briefed Johnson.

 

No one is disputing that 2 of the three copies originally made for Zapruder went to the SS and the FBI.  And Zapruder kept the third copy to exchange it later  for the original when Life returned with the original in a few days after the agreement. copies went 

 

Do you see the difference between the needs for the film of the president and the CIA director vs those of the SS and FBI?  At that point on Saturday, the copies were sufficient for the purposes of the SS and FBI. 

 

But copies  were not sufficient for the president and the CIA to do their jobs.  They needed to use the film original when enlarging individual frames 40 times.  Moreover if some or all of these officials had any reason to believe the Z film might contradict the Oswald story they were already going with, they needed to have the original to try to figure what to do about it.  Doing anything with a copy while Life had the original would make no sense.

 

I've already made these points.  Neither you or Jeremy has seriously challenged them.  Instead you both have mostly sought refuge in your claim that what I'm saying is nothing but worthless speculation.  

 

That Saturday there were two entities that wanted to use the film original for their own purposes.  Life, who had paid a lot of money to buy the original film from Zapruder.  And the president and CIA who needed to use the original to enlarge key frames in make briefing boards so they could see what happened.

 

Your caustic attempt to dismiss that as an issue, or any contact between the CIA and presumably CD Jackson at Life about it as "some side discussion" is not credible.  The use of the original film was a central issue between them that had to be resolved.

 

The CIA knew Life had bought the film original from Zapruder.  When they made the decision to do briefing boards, do you imagine the topic of whether they needed the original film for that purpose never came up?  Of course they knew they needed to original film for the boards.

 

CD Jackson, a long time CIA asset was running Life, at the time.  He was well versed in the national security implications of the murder, particularly in the midst of the uncertainty about what happened just one day before.  He would have no trouble understanding that the needs of the president and his cronies at the CIA for the film original far outweighed those of his magazine to publish some stills from the film in a few days.

 

No, the question of who gets the use of the original film that weekend is not some side issue.  It's a central question.  It's highly likely, however, no extended discussion was really necessary.  The answer was as obvious to Jackson as it was to the CIA.

 

Sandy tried to explain to you that what I have offered is a hypothesis. You know, a premise that accounts for a set of facts that can used as a basis for further investigation.  Seeing that the technical debate about alteration was unlikely to be resolved soon or to everyone's satisfaction, I offered a logical, alternative explanation for the claim of alteration.  I did so in the hope that there would be a discussion about the points I made.

 

You and Jeremy have shown no interest in that. Only on a few occasions have you even tried to deal with the substance of what I said. Instead your comments are loaded with the question where is my documentary evidence for each thing I said.  In doing so, you have tried to ignore the fact that most times you are asking for documentation by the CIA of what they have done.  Your questions answer themselves.  You must know that.  But you keep asking them in lieu of addressing the substance of what I said.

 

In fact the few times either of you have tried to address substance, you response has been lame.  Well, if the McMahon group did produce briefing boards at the NPIC (something you could not deny) it was probably done sometime in December, Jeremy said.  What was done at the two CIA labs that weekend?  Nothing, Jeremy says.  Maybe a few staff wandered by and then went home. 

 

Did Brugioni even do the boards as he claimed?  They no longer exist.  His detailed accounting of that seminal event in his life was made as an old man decades afterward.  Maybe he was misremembering.  Maybe, Jeremy said, he just wandered by the NPIC that weekend and left without doing anything.

 

Was there any documented evidence that the film even was sent to HW? That place that no one but the CIA knew even existed and whos very name was classified until 2010.  Where is the CIA's documentation that they sent the film there that weekend you ask?

 

Maybe your latest claim takes the cake.  No one should believe there was an issue between the CIA and CD Jackson about which entity would use the film original, nor of course any discussion of such, unless the CIA has produced documents verifying it.  You weren't supposed to know about that Tom, or any attempt to divert the original film to the NPIC that Saturday.    

 

You have a right to decide for yourself what constitutes proper research.  But don't keep trying to insist I must accept the boundaries you have created for yourselves.  Particularly when your search for documented evidence in this case is so transparently and falsely manufactured--looking for documents that for the most part you have to know do not exist.

 

Tom:  If you want anyone to believe there was some side discussion about obtaining and analyzing the original Z-film that weekend, you need to produce some actual evidence.

 

RO:  A clear statement of your myopia.

 

Tom:  Otherwise Jeremy is right. Your argument is pure speculation and assumptions. You’ll never convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. 

 

RO:  It's become obvious that I won't convince you and Jeremy of anything.  But not because all I'm offering is speculation and assumptions.

 

What follows is a mind boggling account of what you think real research consists of.  Just a few comments.

 

 

Tom:  So even though it looks like DeLoach was working from erroneous information, this is actual documentary evidence that high-level officials in the FBI and Justice Department were in discussions about retaining the original Zapruder film as evidence on the 23rd. 

 

RO:  No. Life had the original.  I thought you understood that.  Zapruder had kept a copy.  I thought you understood that. 

Tom:  If I were making the “discussion” argument, I’d also include what happened with the WC. Zapruder told the FBI that the 16mm original was “much clearer” than the 8mm copies:

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62284#relPageId=21

 

When the WC saw this FBI report, they reached out to Life to obtain the original film for microscopic study, or something like that, because they thought the original would be more valuable as evidence. I don’t have the internal WC memo handy but it’s in the same google drive link I posted a few comments back with the Life contract. 

 

RO:  So you conclude the WC wanted to original Z film to study because they thought it was superior to using a copy!   I'm stunned .  That's the same reason the CIA wanted the original with which to make briefing boards at its NPIC lab.  Which you dismiss because, unlike with the WC, there is no memo from the CIA explaining that. 

 

It's obvious, isn't it, that the CIA had a genuine and compelling reason for wanting to use the original film to make its briefing boards.  Contrast that with the WC, created to conceal as much of the truth as it could, and instead frame Oswald.

 

Tom:  My point is it is a lot more convincing to make your case with actual research and evidence vs. some variation of “this happened cause I said so”. If you want to get the original Z-film to Washington by Saturday night, repeating the same assumption-filled mantra over and over again isn’t really going to cut it.

 

RO:  This sort of claim that I expected you to believe, or at least treat seriously, the scenario I offer simply because I said so, should be beneath you, Tom.  You know it's not true.  That's not what I said, nor could it be implied from anything I did say.