The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

there was no reason for the White House and CIA, as part of an official investigation, to even consider using a copy when they didn't have to.

Roger's argument seems to be: "the White House and CIA" would have insisted on using only the original, therefore the film at NPIC must be the original. But the first part of the argument is pure speculation. Roger has produced no documentary evidence that anyone in authority insisted on using only the original or was at all bothered by the fact that the only film available to them in Washington on the Saturday afternoon was the Secret Service's first-day copy.

This is the sort of documentary evidence that we can expect to have survived. There's nothing sinister in, say, a memo expressing a preference for the original film rather than a copy. There's no reason to believe that a memo like this would have been censored. But no such evidence seems to exist. At least, Roger has not presented any. Has he even looked in the abundant records, to see what support there is for his claim?

My point was that, according to the documentary evidence that does actually exist, the original film was nowhere near Washington at the time, and for that reason the film which went to NPIC must have been the Secret Service's copy. Until Roger or anyone else produces actual evidence to the contrary, that's the only rational conclusion we can come to, even if it does require Roger to make the painful leap of abandoning his evidence-free assumptions. You can do it, Roger!

Quote

I gave a second reason for them to prefer the original, which you have ignored.  If they had any reason to suspect the Z film contradicted their Oswald story ...

I ignored that specific claim because it comes under the general heading of pure speculation. Note the word "if" in Roger's second sentence.

Quote

Altering or destroying a copy would accomplish nothing while Life still had the original and was going to publish stills from it.

Correct. The documented fact that Life possessed the original is one reason why the original was not altered or destroyed. Roger needs to stop making assumptions and provide actual evidence before claiming that anyone in Washington on the Saturday would have considered altering or destroying any version of a film they hadn't yet seen.

Quote

Wow! Your evidence for the "fact" that both couriers were from the SS is..... that's what they said!

Roger now seems to be claiming that the Secret Service officers who brought a film to the NPIC were CIA officers. I suppose that's the only way to avoid the obvious conclusion that if Secret Service officers brought a film to the NPIC, that film can only realistically have been the Secret Service's copy.

Needless to say, Roger hasn't provided a shred of evidence to support this claim, or even any reason to think such a thing would have happened. Can Roger give us a plausible reason why CIA officers would tell other CIA employees at a CIA plant that they were actually Secret Service officers? What would they hope to gain by doing that?

Quote

You've given no reason to suspect anyone else [other than CIA officers] delivered it.

Roger's own witnesses provided the evidence he's looking for: the claim that the film was delivered by Secret Service officers. 

Surely even Roger must accept by now that the film at NPIC on the Saturday can only have been the Secret Service's copy!

If that film was the Secret Service's copy, that's the end of the idea that the original was altered that weekend. And if the original wasn't altered that weekend, it can't realistically have been altered at all, since numerous copies began to appear shortly afterwards, and rounding them all up would quickly have become impossible.

Quote

Looking for a" trace" of "documentary evidence" that the White House and CIA wanted to use the original film, not a copy, to make briefing boards is a fool's errand.  It's obvious that's what they wanted.

It may be obvious to Roger, but the rest of us will need some actual evidence before concluding that "the White House and CIA wanted to use the original film". The onus really is on Roger to provide evidence to justify his claims. Is there anything at all in the documentary record to suggest that "the White House and CIA wanted to use the original film"? If there is, please cite this evidence so that we can evaluate it. If there isn't, stop making stuff up.

I'm reminded of Chris Scally's question to Roger a few pages ago, which Roger still hasn't answered. What actual research has Roger done? Has Roger even looked at the documentary record for evidence to support any of his claims? If he has, which areas of the records has he checked? If he hasn't even bothered to look, why has he not bothered to look?

Quote

choosing Oswald as the patsy created the need to alter the Z film that contradicted their story.

Roger doesn't seem to understand the point I was making, probably because he can't let go of his assumption that a bunch of all-powerful Bad Guys controlled everything from start to finish: the assassination, the creation of a patsy, the immediate cover-up, and the continuing cover-up.

Come on, Roger! Let go of those assumptions, and see where the actual evidence takes you!

Edited Sunday at 11:04 AM by Jeremy Bojczuk

[Roger Odisio]

19 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

Roger - 

I don't know why you put the word "researcher" in quotation marks in the above passage, because as I pointed out last Monday (page 33 of this topic), the "researcher" who was "sent ... off to try find Bill on a SS roster and was puzzled when he couldn't find him" was Doug Horne!   

 

Chris,

Are you suggesting that Horne, like Jeremy, had no inkling that "Bill Smith from the SS" was an alias when he checked SS records?  Or that Horne was checking the records out of caution to try to verify his expectation the name was false.

In the latter case, you are correct.  I was too flippant to put researcher in quotes and wrong to say he was surprised to not find the name.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/6/2024 at 3:27 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy Larsen wrote:

My proof of the gaping head-wound location is that it is statistically impossible for 40 out of 45 gaping wound witnesses to corroborate each other by placing the wound in the very same location as each other, and yet be wrong. It is a mathematical proof.

On 7/6/2024 at 3:27 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Well, Sandy will need to run that past some experts, if he's claiming that evidence as subjective and malleable as witness statements can constitute mathematical proof of anything.

Those experts might ask:

• Did all of those 40 witnesses place the wound in exactly the same location? If not, how much variation was there?
• If any witnesses were interviewed more than once, did each witness place the wound in exactly the same location each time? If not, how much variation was there?
• How precisely was the location determined in each case? Was it just someone holding his hand above his own head, or were there verbal descriptions, or did the witness mark the location on a model of a human head so that a precise measurement could be taken?
• How long after the event did these witnesses make these claims?
• How closely did each witness come to the president's body? Did they all handle the body, or did some of them only see it from a distance?
• Who was asking the questions of each witness? Did any of the questioners have an agenda that might have influenced the way they asked their questions? Were the questioners leading the witness at all? Were they interested in a precise location or a general location?

And so on. I wouldn't be surprised if Sandy's witness evidence turns out to be not quite as uniform as he thinks it is. On the plus side, it can't be as embarrassing as his failure to spot an obvious example of the parallax effect and proclaiming that as proof of alteration.

 

My statistical proof doesn't rely at all on the reliability of witness statements, or on any other item Jeremy cautions about. It relies only on the odds that 40 out of 45 witnesses would agree upon any given location from a binary choice. In fact, the 45 witnesses don't even need to be witnesses for the proof to hold.

 

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

Roger's argument seems to be: "the White House and CIA" would have insisted on using only the original, therefore the film at NPIC must be the original. But the first part of the argument is pure speculation. Roger has produced no documentary evidence that anyone in authority insisted on using only the original or was at all bothered by the fact that the only film available to them in Washington on the Saturday afternoon was the Secret Service's first-day copy.

This is the sort of documentary evidence that we can expect to have survived. There's nothing sinister in, say, a memo expressing a preference for the original film rather than a copy. There's no reason to believe that a memo like this would have been censored. But no such evidence seems to exist. At least, Roger has not presented any. Has he even looked in the abundant records, to see what support there is for his claim?

My point was that, according to the documentary evidence that does actually exist, the original film was nowhere near Washington at the time, and for that reason the film which went to NPIC must have been the Secret Service's copy. Until Roger or anyone else produces actual evidence to the contrary, that's the only rational conclusion we can come to, even if it does require Roger to make the painful leap of abandoning his evidence-free assumptions. You can do it, Roger!

I ignored that specific claim because it comes under the general heading of pure speculation. Note the word "if" in Roger's second sentence.

Correct. The documented fact that Life possessed the original is one reason why the original was not altered or destroyed. Roger needs to stop making assumptions and provide actual evidence before claiming that anyone in Washington on the Saturday would have considered altering or destroying any version of a film they hadn't yet seen.

Roger now seems to be claiming that the Secret Service officers who brought a film to the NPIC were CIA officers. I suppose that's the only way to avoid the obvious conclusion that if Secret Service officers brought a film to the NPIC, that film can only realistically have been the Secret Service's copy.

Needless to say, Roger hasn't provided a shred of evidence to support this claim, or even any reason to think such a thing would have happened. Can Roger give us a plausible reason why CIA officers would tell other CIA employees at a CIA plant that they were actually Secret Service officers? What would they hope to gain by doing that?

Roger's own witnesses provided the evidence he's looking for: the claim that the film was delivered by Secret Service officers. 

Surely even Roger must accept by now that the film at NPIC on the Saturday can only have been the Secret Service's copy!

If that film was the Secret Service's copy, that's the end of the idea that the original was altered that weekend. And if the original wasn't altered that weekend, it can't realistically have been altered at all, since numerous copies began to appear shortly afterwards, and rounding them all up would quickly have become impossible.

It may be obvious to Roger, but the rest of us will need some actual evidence before concluding that "the White House and CIA wanted to use the original film". The onus really is on Roger to provide evidence to justify his claims. Is there anything at all in the documentary record to suggest that "the White House and CIA wanted to use the original film"? If there is, please cite this evidence so that we can evaluate it. If there isn't, stop making stuff up.

I'm reminded of Chris Scally's question to Roger a few pages ago, which Roger still hasn't answered. What actual research has Roger done? Has Roger even looked at the documentary record for evidence to support any of his claims? If he has, which areas of the records has he checked? If he hasn't even bothered to look, why has he not bothered to look?

Roger doesn't seem to understand the point I was making, probably because he can't let go of his assumption that a bunch of all-powerful Bad Guys controlled everything from start to finish: the assassination, the creation of a patsy, the immediate cover-up, and the continuing cover-up.

Come on, Roger! Let go of those assumptions, and see where the actual evidence takes you!

You admit, as you must, that a copy of the Z Film does not provide the same clarity as the original.  I said that's a logical reason for the officials responsible for finding out what happened to want to use the original for their briefing boards.  Moreover why would they willingly use inferior information, since they couldn't possibly know whether what they have missed by using a copy was crucial or not, without knowing what was in the original?

Moreover, unless you want to claim the murder was done by Oswald, or somebody by themselves from the 6th floor, you must admit the original Z film contradicted the Oswald story officials were already spreading (from the WH Situation Room, e.g).  As such, that admission must be part of your analysis, as much as you want to seriously confine things to what official, surviving documents say that were left behind for you to find. 

Officials from the WH and CIA would have to consider that contradiction and its impact on their story.  They would need the original film to deal with that were they to find such evidence on their briefing boards.

You have no response to either points, no countervailing points to offer.  Points of logic to you are simply speculation, unsupported assumptions from which we can learn nothing.

Instead, as always, you do two things on this point. 

1.  Seize on my use of the word "if" in my explanation of the second reason (deleting other parts of the sentence, thereby distorting it to make it seem as if I'm merely offering some contingency), in order to claim what I said is speculation unsupported by anything. Which you say allows to ignore the point.  Of course it doesn't, but such a comment allows you to slip away.   

2. Ask where are the documents that prove that the WH and CIA were considering any such thing?  Secure in the knowledge there won't be any such documents.  Or, if there ever had been, they would not survive to today for obvious reasons. 

On top of that, on the topic of who delivered the film to the CIA labs, you ask:  "Can Roger give us a plausible reason why CIA officers would tell other CIA employees at a CIA plant that they were actually Secret Service officers? What would they hope to gain by doing that?"  To discredit the idea of simply, gullibly, believing who the couriers said they were.

After I had just answered that! As if you have no idea how the CIA functions, and never heard of their basic principles of the need to know and compartmentalization.  Feigning such ignorance to try avoid questions here, but it does you no favors.

None of this is a surprise.  But In constantly repeating the same response built around the question, where is you documentary evidence, no matter the point raised, your posts have descended into self-parody.  

 

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

3 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

On top of that, on the topic of who delivered the film to the CIA labs, you ask:  "Can Roger give us a plausible reason why CIA officers would tell other CIA employees at a CIA plant that they were actually Secret Service officers? What would they hope to gain by doing that?"  To discredit the idea of simply, gullibly, believing who the couriers said they were.

After I had just answered that! As if you have no idea how the CIA functions, and never heard of their basic principles of the need to know and compartmentalization.  Feigning such ignorance to try avoid questions here, but it does you no favors.

 

 

I´m having some problem seeing anyone getting IN a CIA plant without showing a proper ID and just say he´s SS.   Even if they were actually CIA, they wouldn´t simply get in saying they were SS ... They would have to proof it (and see next).

Now, within the CIA they could have official credentials showing an alias . But that doesn´t make them SS o/c.  

Also, one could not show your CIA credential at the gate, and once inside introduce yourself as SS... The guy at the gate normally would have notified the contact inside about who´s entering (and to check if the contact is indeed there and ready to receive the persons). You don´t want someone walking around there who doesn´t normally work there...

ALL of the above has been SOP since a very long time, even in private companies. 

Things might have been - in general - a little looser in the 1960´s, but not with the CIA, not with the killing of a President, not during the Cold War and not with  a very important piece of evidence.

If they were SS they would present them as such at the gate with proper credentials, same for CIA.

No hanky panky getting in a CIA plant in those days IMO. That only happens in movies

 

Edited Sunday at 11:16 PM by Jean Ceulemans

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/6/2024 at 2:07 PM, Pat Speer said:

Now, James Jenkins had weighed in on the [clandestine surgery] as well, and had insisted no such surgery occurred and that he was in the morgue from hours before the autopsy until the next morning, after the body had been re-constructed. So Horne invented from whole cloth for his book that Jenkins was kept from the morgue for hours, and only allowed in after the "surgery" had been completed.

 

First, Horne didn't say anybody, including Jenkins, was kept out of the morgue for "hours." It was a matter of minutes.

Second, the thing that you say Horne "invented from who cloth" was a speculative part of his theory. There is nothing wrong with speculating when forming a theory or hypothesis... it is standard practice.

Third, regarding the discrepancy between Horne's theory and Jenkins' account... either Jenkins is mistaken, or Horne's theory needs to be adjusted to account for the discrepancy.

As it turns out, Jenkins is one step  ahead of Horne. You see, Jenkins happens to agree with Horne that illicit surgery took place. He just believes that the surgery took place at a location other than the Bethesda morgue. (Source: Jenkins' 2018 book, Kindle edition, pages 114, 115.)

 

Edited Sunday at 11:30 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Matt Cloud]

46 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I´m having some problem seeing anyone getting IN a CIA plant without showing a proper ID and just say he´s SS.   Even if they were actually CIA, they wouldn´t simply get in saying they were SS ... They would have to proof it (and see next).

Now, within the CIA they could have official credentials showing an alias . But that doesn´t make them SS o/c.  

Also, one could not show your CIA credential at the gate, and once inside introduce yourself as SS... The guy at the gate normally would have notified the contact inside about who´s entering (and to check if the contact is indeed there and ready to receive the persons). You don´t want someone walking around there who doesn´t normally work there...

ALL of the above has been SOP since a very long time, even in private companies. 

Things might have been - in general - a little looser in the 1960´s, but not with the CIA, not with the killing of a President, not during the Cold War and not with  a very important piece of evidence.

If they were SS they would present them as such at the gate with proper credentials, same for CIA.

No hanky panky getting in a CIA plant in those days IMO. That only happens in movies

 

SS is CIA, essentially, or so someone knowledgable once told me.  In any event, clearance level requirements would be co-terminus, necessarily, at least as to those SS with presidential detail.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

First, Horne didn't say anybody, including Jenkins, was kept out of the morgue for "hours." It was a matter of minutes.

Second, the thing that you say Horne "invented from who cloth" was a speculative part of his theory. There is nothing wrong with speculating when forming a theory or hypothesis... it is standard practice.

Third, regarding the discrepancy between Horne's theory and Jenkins' account... either Jenkins is mistaken, or Horne's theory needs to be adjusted to account for the discrepancy.

As it turns out, Jenkins is one step  ahead of Horne. You see, Jenkins happens to agree with Horne that illicit surgery took place. He just believes that the surgery took place at a location other than the Bethesda morgue. (Source: Jenkins' 2018 book, Kindle edition, pages 114, 115.)

 

Why do you continue to pretend Horne is a reliable source?

One of the first to interview Jenkins was author Harrison Livingstone. Well, In his 1992 book High Treason 2, Livingstone described Jenkins' actions or quoted him directly as follows...

• “Jenkins was not allowed to leave the room, except once when Captain John H. Stover told him to go eat his lunch. He was only gone a few moments. He said it had to be after 3:30 P.M.” (Page 132)

• “As soon as they told us classes were cancelled, I was never allowed to leave. I think that was at 3:30.” (Page 133)

• “I was in the morgue all night long.” (Page 225)

• “I was there all of the time. The only time I was away from the table was probably five or ten minutes when I was told to get a sandwich. But I did not leave the room.” (Page 227)

• “Stover was the one who finally told me to go and get something to eat. I walked behind him to the three little rooms just back there, got a sandwich, took a couple of bites, and went back to the table.” (Page 228)

• “Jenkins was not allowed to leave the room, except once when Captain Stover told him to eat his lunch. He was only gone a few moments. He said it had to be after 3:30 P.M.” (Page 231)

• “As soon as they told us classes were canceled, the duty people were told to report to the morgue. I was never allowed to leave. I think that was at three-thirty.” (Page 232)

• “Jenkins said that he and Paul were told to go to the morgue at three-thirty to four P.M. Jenkins was not allowed to leave the morgue. “Paul was a kind of courier. He always had an escort, and was in and out the morgue.” (Page 238)

• “Jenkins told me that no one had access to the body in the morgue that night, or in the cold room.” (Page 247)

• “Jenkins insisted to me that he never once left the morgue from about three-thirty or four in the afternoon until nine A.M. the following morning.” (Page 249)

• Now Livingstone also interviewed Jenkins' friend and co-worker, Paul O'Connor, and quoted him as follows...

• “Jenkins was in there full-time.” (Page 276)

And this wasn't a one-time thing. When interviewed by William Law years later, Jenkins said something similar. 

Law: Were you asked not to leave the morgue?
Jenkins: I did not leave the morgue...We were not allowed to leave.

Now, as stated, this is TOXIC to Horne's theory, which holds that Dr.s Humes and Boswell performed post-mortem surgery on Kennedy's cadaver in the very morgue where Jenkins worked,. So Horne needed to convince his readers that Jenkins, whose credentials among the research community had already been established, was in and out of the morgue that night and failed to see what Humes and Boswell were up to. 

Here's Horne in his Magnum Opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: 

• “...James Jenkins...[is] dismissed...” (Page 1003)

• “...[Roy Kellerman] readmits...Jenkins...” (Page 1008)

• “If Jenkins was dismissed from the morgue...as I infer...” (Page 1036)

• “...Prior to 8:00 PM...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1039)

• “...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1040)

• “...Prior to 8:00 PM...he [was] not present in the morgue...” (Page 1048)

Now, it should come as no surprise that Horne's persistent lies about Jenkins did not stop with his book. On 11-26-13, he blogged about Jenkins, saying: "I have concluded that it was during this 85-minute interregnum—a period of almost an hour and a half—that the clandestine surgery took place. O’Connor and Jenkins were clearly excluded from the morgue at the time, otherwise they would also remember the modified “skull cap” performed by Humes, just as Robinson and Reed did...“ He then concluded: "James Jenkins and Paul O’Connor were not in the morgue, before 8:00 PM.”

 

Horne was thereby not only incorrect about Jenkins, he was making up facts and inserting them into his scenario to fool his readers. 

As far as Jenkins, he does not agree that illicit surgery took place. He accepts the possibility, but has not concluded as much.

Here is what he had to say on this matter...

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in th morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell performed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

P.S. Since you love math, you should have no problem realizing that Horne has Jenkins out of the morgue until 8:00, when Jenkins has long claimed he was there from 3:30 on. 

So in claiming Horne had Jenkins out of the morgue for hours after he said Jenkins said he was in there, I was actually understating the case. You claimed it was "minutes" but it was really FOUR AND A HALF HOURS. 

Let that sink in. If you wanna propose body alteration etc you should do so without relying on Horne. 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

a copy of the Z Film does not provide the same clarity as the original.  I said that's a logical reason for the officials responsible for finding out what happened to want to use the original for their briefing boards.

The officials may have "want[ed] to use the original for their briefing boards", despite the complete lack of documentary evidence to support this assumption. But, as I keep pointing out, Roger needs to provide actual evidence to support his claim that officials actually insisted on using the original and not a copy. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

Quote

Moreover why would they willingly use inferior information

Because, according to the actual evidence that exists, a copy of the film is all they had.

We must base our conclusions on the actual evidence that exists, not on empty speculation. According to the evidence that exists, officials in Washington had access to only one version of the Zapruder film on the Saturday afternoon. The original and the other two copies were (at least) hundreds of miles away (although another copy was on its way to Washington).

Since the only version which the officials had access to was the Secret Service's first-day copy, and since the film at NPIC was brought there by the Secret Service, the film at NPIC can only have been the Secret Service's copy. This really isn't difficult to understand, and it's the only conclusion which the existing evidence allows us to make.

Quote

you must admit the original Z film contradicted the Oswald story officials were already spreading (from the WH Situation Room, e.g).

Yes, we know that now. But so what? No-one in Washington would have known exactly what the film contained until they viewed it. The fact that the film turned out to contradict the lone-nut story does not allow us to conclude that anyone in Washington would have insisted on viewing only the original film. If Roger wants us to believe that they did insist on this, he needs to provide actual documentary evidence, not speculation. Since a copy was the only version the officials had access to, they would have used the copy.

Quote

Officials from the WH and CIA would have to consider that contradiction and its impact on their story.  They would need the original film to deal with that were they to find such evidence on their briefing boards.

That second sentence is pure speculation. "Officials from the WH and CIA" would have wanted "to deal with that" contradiction by ... doing what, exactly? Something for which no evidence exists, presumably.

Underneath all of this speculation, there's Roger's basic assumption that the people in Washington who were spreading the lone-nut story after the assassination were the same people who planned the assassination and decided before the event to pin the blame on a lone nut. That's something he needs to justify with evidence, not merely assume to be true. Roger's entire evidence-free, speculation-filled scenario is based on that assumption.

As I pointed out earlier, that assumption makes no sense. Any planners who deliberately staged an assassination using multiple gunmen in front of a large crowd of people with cameras could have expected photographic evidence to emerge which revealed that multiple gunmen were involved. Those planners, if they were acting rationally, cannot have wanted that assassination to appear to be the act of a lone nut.

What actual evidence (not speculation) does Roger have that the people who planned the assassination were the same people who tried to impose the lone-nut story afterwards?

Edited Monday at 08:56 AM by Jeremy Bojczuk

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Because, according to the actual evidence that exists, a copy of the film is all they had.

We must base our conclusions on the actual evidence that exists, not on empty speculation. According to the evidence that exists, officials in Washington had access to only one version of the Zapruder film on the Saturday afternoon. The original and the other two copies were (at least) hundreds of miles away (although another copy was on its way to Washington).

Since the only version which the officials had access to was the Secret Service's first-day copy, and since the film at NPIC was brought there by the Secret Service, the film at NPIC can only have been the Secret Service's copy. This really isn't difficult to understand, and it's the only conclusion which the existing evidence allows us to make.

I tried looking for documentary evidence in support of Roger’s theory. I even provided a few leads. He didn’t seem interested. 

I posted actual evidence that high-level government officials were discussing retaining the original Zapruder film as evidence on the 23rd despite ‘pressure from the press’: 

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

I also posted evidence that the WC obtained the original Z-film from Life based on an FBI statement from Zapruder that the original was “much clearer” than the copies.

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

That’s not much to go on, but it’s still more documentary evidence than Roger has produced in this entire thread.

One could argue that since the FBI and Justice Department were considering retaining the original film on the 23rd (even though they mistakenly thought they had it), and that Zapruder and presumably the SS knew the original was “much clearer” than the copies, it is at least possible that the original film was considered important enough to obtain from Life. It’s not remotely conclusive, but it’s a notch above pure speculation at least - an actual evidence-based “premise”. 

Here’s another potential lead. Chris Scally mentioned some hearsay from Ray Rowan through Gary Mack that the Z-film was flown from Chicago to Life’s offices in New York on Sunday. Stolley gave a slightly different version in an interview with the 6FM. Stolley said: 

The film was, um, hand carried to Chicago, where the magazine was closing at the printing plant. Um, another copy went to New York, and there it was shown either late Saturday night or sometime on Sunday to all the executives at Time back then. And I’ve been told and I think it’s correct that the publisher of Life, a man named CD Jackson, who had been in CIA or OSS during the war, and is part of some of the conspiracy theories, because of his wartime experience. I suspect he made the judgment that we should get not just print, but all rights. 

 

Zapruder’s original contract suggests that he retained the last first day copy until Monday, so here we have a potential mechanism for the original Z-film getting to within ~230 miles of NPIC in the required timeframe.

If I were Roger, I’d scour the internet for any information pertaining to the Z-film in New York that weekend. When exactly did the film arrive in New York? Did any of the Time executives ever mention a viewing? Was anyone else present? Is it possible the film was sent from New York to Washington? Do we have any statements from CD Jackson? 

Here’s another memo that’s kind of interesting. James Rowley wrote to Henry Suydan of Life on 1/27/64 and told him: 

The film has not been shown to anyone outside the Secret Service, except to members of the staff of the President’s Commission on the Assassination. 

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

So did Rowley lie to Suydan? It sure looks like it. Do we have Suydan’s Jan. 7th letter to Rowley? 

Roger has implied that I’m demanding a smoking gun memo from the CIA or something. I’m not. I’d just like to see some actual research vs. the same evidence-free mantra about “Johnson and the CIA” over and over again.

As Jeremy pointed out, all the evidence suggests that the film brought to NPIC by the SS was the first-day copy the SS sent to Washington. If there is a plausible, evidence-based alternate scenario, let’s see it. Post the documents. Show us the discrepancies in the official story. Belief, speculation and assumptions are not evidence. 

 

[Chris Scally]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

 

So did Rowley lie to Suydan? It sure looks like it. Do we have Suydan’s Jan. 7th letter to Rowley? 

Tom, Herewith the Suydan letter to Rowley dated January 7, 1964.

 

 

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

 

Thank you Chris.

Do you happen to have any information on a Z-film viewing at Life’s offices in New York on Saturday evening and/or Sunday? 

I’m curious if there are any statements from attendees, or any other evidence concerning custody of the original film that weekend, in New York or anywhere else. 

As you are aware, the alteration believers claim, without any supporting evidence, that the original film made it to Washington D.C. by late Saturday night. 

I’m trying to figure out if there is any evidence someone could use to spin the New York trip into a cover or intermediate stop on the way to NPIC. I’m assuming the answer is no, but either way I’d still like to learn more about the Z-film in New York. 

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Why do you continue to pretend Horne is a reliable source?

 

Because I've never seen Horne make an intentional mistake.

 

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

One of the first to interview Jenkins was author Harrison Livingstone. Well, In his 1992 book High Treason 2, Livingstone described Jenkins' actions or quoted him directly as follows...

• “Jenkins was not allowed to leave the room, except once when Captain John H. Stover told him to go eat his lunch. He was only gone a few moments. He said it had to be after 3:30 P.M.” (Page 132)

• “As soon as they told us classes were cancelled, I was never allowed to leave. I think that was at 3:30.” (Page 133)

• “I was in the morgue all night long.” (Page 225)

• “I was there all of the time. The only time I was away from the table was probably five or ten minutes when I was told to get a sandwich. But I did not leave the room.” (Page 227)

• “Stover was the one who finally told me to go and get something to eat. I walked behind him to the three little rooms just back there, got a sandwich, took a couple of bites, and went back to the table.” (Page 228)

• “Jenkins was not allowed to leave the room, except once when Captain Stover told him to eat his lunch. He was only gone a few moments. He said it had to be after 3:30 P.M.” (Page 231)

• “As soon as they told us classes were canceled, the duty people were told to report to the morgue. I was never allowed to leave. I think that was at three-thirty.” (Page 232)

• “Jenkins said that he and Paul were told to go to the morgue at three-thirty to four P.M. Jenkins was not allowed to leave the morgue. “Paul was a kind of courier. He always had an escort, and was in and out the morgue.” (Page 238)

• “Jenkins told me that no one had access to the body in the morgue that night, or in the cold room.” (Page 247)

• “Jenkins insisted to me that he never once left the morgue from about three-thirty or four in the afternoon until nine A.M. the following morning.” (Page 249)

• Now Livingstone also interviewed Jenkins' friend and co-worker, Paul O'Connor, and quoted him as follows...

• “Jenkins was in there full-time.” (Page 276)

And this wasn't a one-time thing. When interviewed by William Law years later, Jenkins said something similar. 

Law: Were you asked not to leave the morgue?
Jenkins: I did not leave the morgue...We were not allowed to leave.

Now, as stated, this is TOXIC to Horne's theory, which holds that Dr.s Humes and Boswell performed post-mortem surgery on Kennedy's cadaver in the very morgue where Jenkins worked,. So Horne needed to convince his readers that Jenkins, whose credentials among the research community had already been established, was in and out of the morgue that night and failed to see what Humes and Boswell were up to. 

Here's Horne in his Magnum Opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: 

• “...James Jenkins...[is] dismissed...” (Page 1003)

• “...[Roy Kellerman] readmits...Jenkins...” (Page 1008)

• “If Jenkins was dismissed from the morgue...as I infer...” (Page 1036)

• “...Prior to 8:00 PM...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1039)

• “...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1040)

• “...Prior to 8:00 PM...he [was] not present in the morgue...” (Page 1048)

Now, it should come as no surprise that Horne's persistent lies about Jenkins did not stop with his book. On 11-26-13, he blogged about Jenkins, saying: "I have concluded that it was during this 85-minute interregnum—a period of almost an hour and a half—that the clandestine surgery took place. O’Connor and Jenkins were clearly excluded from the morgue at the time, otherwise they would also remember the modified “skull cap” performed by Humes, just as Robinson and Reed did...“ He then concluded: "James Jenkins and Paul O’Connor were not in the morgue, before 8:00 PM.”

 

For the record, none of this is inconsistent what I wrote in the post Pat is replying to. He's just ragging on Horne.

 

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Horne was thereby not only incorrect about Jenkins, he was making up facts and inserting them into his scenario to fool his readers. 

 

As I said in my last post, Horne "making up facts" was a speculative part of his theory. There is nothing wrong with speculating when forming a theory or hypothesis... it is standard practice.

Regarding the discrepancy between Horne's theory and Jenkins' account... either Jenkins is mistaken, or Horne's theory needs to be adjusted to account for the discrepancy.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/7/2024 at 9:53 PM, Pat Speer said:

Now, it should come as no surprise that Horne's persistent lies about Jenkins did not stop with his book...

 

Using your own standard of a researcher being labeled a liar...

What about all your persistent lies regarding the 40 witnesses who said they saw a gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head, while you persistently say they are wrong?

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:19 AM by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/7/2024 at 9:53 PM, Pat Speer said:

On 7/7/2024 at 5:28 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Jenkins happens to agree with Horne that illicit surgery took place. He just believes that the surgery took place at a location other than the Bethesda morgue. (Source: Jenkins' 2018 book, Kindle edition, pages 114, 115.)

 

On 7/7/2024 at 9:53 PM, Pat Speer said:

As far as Jenkins, he does not agree that illicit surgery took place. He accepts the possibility, but has not concluded as much.

 

Yes, Jenkins does indeed agree that illicit surgery took place, or at least is inclined to believe it did. Here is what he wrote in his 2018 book, At the Cold Shoulder of History:

I believe that the clandestine  surgery / examination, first described by David Lifton and later by Doug Horne, resulted in the longitudinal scalp laceration that has previously been described in the original autopsy report.

While this is outside my sphere of direct of knowledge, it does however lend some credence to Lifton's and Horne's beliefs in clandestine surgery / examination on the body before it arrived in the morgue for autopsy.

(p. 115, Kindle version)

 

BTW, this sure doesn't sound like Jenkins is upset with Horne the way you are, with you always pointing out that Horne repeatedly lies about Jenkins. It makes me think that you are misunderstanding or mischaracterizing something.