The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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?

 

As I keep pointing out, what Roger claims happened to the Z film is a theory, and that speculation is ALWAYS used in theories.

Roger, if you want to stop Jeremy from pointing out the parts of your theory that are speculative, you could try prefacing each of those parts by saying "it could be," "I believe that," or some such thing.

 

[Roger Odisio]

7 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

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

. 

 

The question of whether the film that appeared at NPIC on Saturday and Sunday was the original or a copy came up because you and Jeremy claimed you knew it was a copy and therefore film alteration at NPIC or Hawkeye Works would not have made sense.  In fact, it's now clear you know no such thing.  "All the evidence suggests" the film was brought to the NPIC that Saturday by the SS, often repeated by you, is not true. 

That Saturday the officials in DC investigating the murder ordered briefing boards to be made to clarify what happened.   Early Sunday McCone and then Johnson were briefed on what the boards showed.  Unless you think that Oswald or someone else alone firing from the 6th floor murdered Kennedy, the boards must have contradicted the Oswald story.  Oswald did it alone was already the official story, spread from at least the White House Situation Room and FBI.  

After the briefing, both men knew the official story was false, if they had not known it before.  That's true even if neither had prior knowledge of the murder and were not involved.  If, however, one or both were involved, they would have already have known the film would contradict their Oswald story.  At his point we need not settle that question.

The reasons are clear why the DC officials wanted the original film to be used in the boards.  Neither you nor Jeremy have disputed the fact that using the original film would produce clearer results for the boards. 

Neither men being briefed could have known the extent of what was missing by using a copy, unless they had also seen boards using the original.  There was no reason for them to settle for using a copy, unless it could be shown that someone else, like Life magazine, had a greater need for the original than they, the officials responsible for determining what happened.  I'm aware of no one, including you, who has even tried to make that case.

There was, in fact, another compelling reason to want the original film for the boards.  When it became clear the film contradicted the Oswald story, as it did, it would be necessary to have the original while deciding what to do about the discrepancy.   

The original film arrived in Chicago almost 12 hours before Brugioni received some version of the film at NPIC.  The CIA had its own planes.  The film could have been sent to the CIA's labs in DC.

Therefore their was a choice to be made that Saturday afternoon:  should the original film remain with Life to make stills for its magazine or be transferred to the CIA labs for briefing boards for the officials awaiting them.

The person making the decision for Life was its publisher, CD Jackson, who had done work for the CIA for decades. The CIA's argument was clear.  One day after the murder with so much uncertainty about what happened and by whom, determining the answer to the important questions was, at its base, a matter of national security.  Jackson understood that.

Incredibly, earlier in the discussion you actually denied there was a decision to be made.  You asked for the documents proving it ever happened!

Up until this point, nothing I have said is speculation.  I have offered a set of facts that formed the setting for deciding who would use the original film.  These facts, by the way, are *evidence* in considering the question before us.  All evidence does not take the form of documents.  And all documents are not reliable evidence.

You ask for "a plausible, evidence-based alternate scenario" to your claim the the SS sent a copy to the NPIC on Saturday.  I just gave it to you. 

From this set of facts it's obvious the decision was easy.  The CIA's need for the original film was compelling, much more important than Life's need.  Life could make do with a copy that week to make the black and white stills that appeared in its first edition that hit the streets that Tuesday.  Jackson would have no trouble understanding whose need was more compelling.

But it's clear you don't consider the facts I laid out to be evidence. You follow your request for evidence with "Post the documents" as if that's the only form evidence can take in your view. It's not.  This is especially true when some of the documents you ask for would have to be supplied by the CIA. You must know they don't exist.

But wait, you say.  Against all of that above, you know, in fact, that it was the SS who sent its copy to the NPIC lab that Saturday.  And to HW early Sunday.  And back to the NPIC later on Sunday.  It was not the CIA sending a film to its own facilities.

Because the couriers with the film said they were from the SS!!

I gently suggested, twice, that you think about the CIA's well known principles that it lives by--the compartmentalization of duties, and the need to know.  Believe it or not, some, perhaps many, of the people who had a role in planning, carrying out, and covering up the murder did not know the whole story; only their part. Nothing unusual about that.  It's Standard Operating Procedure.

Not only does "Bill Smith" claiming he is from the SS not mean anything, there is evidence he was lying.  He was not from the SS. According to McMahon "Bill" took an active hand in picking frames to enlarge for the boards. McMahon thought the film showed many more shots than three and from different directions.  "Bill" ignored him and chose the frames to enlarge.  In fact some of McMahon's work doesn't appear on the extant boards at NARA, and other things were added after McMahon left.

"Bill" told McMahon he wasn't to tell anyone what he had done, and if he was asked by anyone about his work that night he was to refer that person to the Captain whose name I have forgotten.

Why would an SS agent do any of those things?

To repeat what I said in an earlier post:  you are free define what you think evidence is in doing your  research.  Just don't try to force me to use your restricted definition. I think it's inadequate, missing much that is important. And don't claim every inference I draw from facts known to everyone as evidence-free speculation.

You have failed to contradict that where the actions of the parties that weekend lead us.  The original film was diverted that Saturday to the CIA's NPIC lab so briefing boards could be made to show officials clearly what happened.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

@Roger Odisio

Roger, any time you explain why something in your story had to be the case, then that implies that what you are explaining is speculation. In fact, it is better than pure speculation because it has a reason for being.

But what you have described is in fact a theory, given the fact that there are instances of speculation in it.

There is nothing wrong with theories. For those of us who accept the fact that the Z film has been altered, your theory serves well in explaining how the alteration was done in such a short period of time.

To me your theory looks viable, and so I accept it. Your critics don't accept it, and that's fine. But if they want to stop others from accepting it too, they need to prove that something is wrong with it. After which you can either update your theory accordingly, or you can show they are wrong.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:55 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Scally]

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

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. 

 

Tom, 

I'm not aware of any direct statements from attendees at a viewing of the Zapruder film in the Time-Life offices NY on Saturday / Sunday, November 23-24, 1963. However, In his Sixth Floor Museum Oral History interview in 2011, Richard Stolley says (at about 6:45 into the recording) that "either late Saturday night or sometime on Sunday" the film was shown to executives at Time Inc. in New York. 

David Wrone, in his book "The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination", says (p. 35) "sometime on Sunday in New York City, Life's publisher C.D. Jackson viewed with horror the images on the newly arrived film". In his book, "National Nightmare on six feet of film", Richard Trask says (p. 132) that "C.D. Jackson, upon seeing a projection of the film on Sunday, November 24 was shocked and repulsed at the possibility of its morbid and graphically bloody scenes being shown to the public". 

So, while there does not seem to be any related "statements from attendees" or direct "evidence concerning custody of the original film that weekend", the balance of probability would suggest to me that the film was sent from Chicago to Life HQ in New York either late on Saturday evening or very early on the Sunday morning (I would guess it was probably the former, but I have no direct evidence of that). This would be consistent with the frames from the film to be used in the November 29 issue of Life being available at RR Donnelley at around 8 pm on the Saturday evening, as I was told in early 2010.

Edited Tuesday at 10:52 AM by Chris Scally

[Tom Gram]

13 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Up until this point, nothing I have said is speculation.  I have offered a set of facts that formed the setting for deciding who would use the original film.  These facts, by the way, are *evidence* in considering the question before us.  All evidence does not take the form of documents.  And all documents are not reliable evidence.

This is pretty amazing, Roger. You are now literally claiming that your beliefs, assumptions, and speculations are “facts”. Up until this point, essentially everything you’ve said is speculation. You have repeatedly failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

Your entire argument relies on your interpretation of how you think people should have reacted that weekend. Are you a time-traveling clairvoyant now? You know what CD Jackson was thinking because he at one point worked for the CIA? 

I tried to help out by providing a few leads, but for whatever reason you don’t seem interested in researching the viability of your own theory.

Let’s get rid of ALL the assumptions for a moment and look at the actual evidence. A plausible, evidence-based scenario would look something like this: 

Was the original Z-film obtained from Life the weekend of the assassination? 

The WC obtained the original film from Life in Jan. ‘64 based on an FBI statement from Zapruder that the original was “much clearer” than the copies. The copies were viewed by Zapruder and SS agents shortly after the assassination, so it is reasonable to assume that the SS was aware of the quality difference. 

The FBI and Justice Department were discussing retaining the original film “strictly as evidence” on the 23rd despite pressure from the press. The FBI did not have the original film, but it is possible that a similar discussion occurred once it was realized that Zapruder had turned over the original film to Life. 

There is thus a non-zero probability that government officials reached out to Life to obtain the original film for analysis at some point on the weekend of assassination, like the WC did in Jan. ‘64. It is not remotely conclusive, but it gives us a starting point at least. We can look for any corroborating and/or contradictory evidence and revise our theory from there. 

Was the original film brought to NPIC? 

All of the evidence, dating back to the Rockafeller Commission and corroborated by the ARRB, suggests that the NPIC analysis was performed on behalf of the Secret Service. NPIC was located in Washington. The Secret Service sent a copy of the Z-film directly to Washington on the 23rd. The CIA told ROCKCOM that McCone was approached by the SS with a “copy of the Zapruder film”, and the NPIC witnesses in the 90s made a few statements suggesting the film was indeed a copy - such as the lack of sprocket hole images mentioned by Brugioni and Hunter. However the NPIC witnesses gave contradictory information - like McMahon believing he worked on an unslit original and Hunter saying essentially the exact opposite: that the film was NOT in unslit double-8 format.

Even without the NPIC witnesses, there is compelling evidence that the film studied by NPIC was the SS copy that was sent to Rowley in Washington on the 23rd, since: 1) that is the only copy of the Z-film known to have been in Washington on the weekend of the assassination; and 2) the NPIC analysis was requested by the Secret Service. 

However, is it possible that the original film was diverted to NPIC that weekend? When would that have occurred? 

All the evidence suggests that the original Z-film was taken from Zapruder by Richard Stolley on the morning of the 23rd and sent to Chicago. In Chicago, black-and-white copies of the film were made, and used to prepare the Nov. 29th issue of Life. 

We also have corroborating accounts from Stolley and Ray Rowan that the original film was sent to New York at some point on Saturday evening or Sunday, and shown to Life executives including CD Jackson. The evidence suggests that after viewing the film, Jackson reached out to Stolley’s boss, or something like that, and told him to obtain full rights to the film. Stolley did say the film sent to New York was a copy, but it is reasonable to assume he was incorrect on that point. 

New York gets the original film ~400 miles closer to NPIC than Chicago, but so far we do not have any evidence that the original film ever made it to Washington. 

The logical thing to do here before proceeding would be a deep dive into the Z-film in New York that weekend, to see if we can find additional evidence. Chris Scally provided quotes from two books that mention CD Jackson’s reaction upon viewing the film on Sunday. We should check the footnotes and see if there’s any additional info. We also should look for press reports, statements from Life officials, and any documents that mention or allude to the New York trip. 

However, assuming the trail ends here, we’ll need to speculate to get the original film to NPIC. Since we do not have a full chain of custody, we can claim it is possible that the film was brought from New York to Washington, or to Washington directly and back to New York to be viewed at Life’s offices on Sunday, or something along those lines. 

So best case scenario, we have a valid argument that the original film at NPIC cannot be completely rejected based on the available evidence, but we have no positive evidence it actually occurred - and substantial evidence suggesting the film at NPIC was the SS first-day copy sent to Washington. 

A reasonable conclusion would be the following: 

1. The evidence strongly suggests that the film studied at NPIC was the SS copy sent to Washington. 

2. There is a non-zero chance that the original film was obtained somehow from Life and brought to NPIC. However, barring additional evidence, we must remain skeptical. We certainly cannot present this scenario as fact. 

The next step should be to perform an exhaustive study of the documentary record to look for any corroboration. If we find any, we might have a decent case. If not, all we can do is speculate. 

Edited Tuesday at 08:30 PM by Tom Gram

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

This is pretty amazing, Roger. You are now literally claiming that your beliefs, assumptions, and speculations are “facts”. Up until this point, essentially everything you’ve said is speculation. You have reTpeatedly failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

You can claim I haven't offered any evidence to support my account because, it's now clear, you don't know what evidence is.  Evidence is *any* information on which a judgement or conclusion may be based. You think to be evidence all such information must be documented, contained in a document, in order to be considered something on which a conclusion may be based.  The foolishness of your definition is made clear simply by realizing it lead you to insist on documentation from the CIA in this case.  Besides being a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is.

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Your entire argument relies on your interpretation of how you think people should have reacted that weekend. Are you a time-traveling clairvoyant now? You know what CD Jackson was thinking because he at one point worked for the CIA? 

This is a distortion.  I explained who Jackson was.  A long time CIA asset, still one at the time (not someone who worked for the CIA "at one point").  I said it was a *fact* that the CIA had much more important reasons for using the original film than did Life.  I asserted he would have no trouble understanding that and would not have standed in the way of a CIA request for the original.

If you disagree, explain why. If you think Jackson would have rejected a CIA request for the original film, explain why.  Don't try instead to cut off a discussion of this central topic by screaming speculation as you been repeatedly doing.  Respond to my actual points.

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I tried to help out by providing a few leads, but for whatever reason you don’t seem interested in researching the viability of your own theory.

You offered a few "leads" to inconsequential rabbit holes that mostly divert attention from the central question of what happened to the original film that Saturday. 

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Let’s get rid of ALL the assumptions for a moment and look at the actual evidence. A plausible, evidence-based scenario would look something like this: 

Was the original Z-film obtained from Life the weekend of the assassination? 

The WC obtained the original film from Life in Jan. ‘64 based on an FBI statement from Zapruder that the original was “much clearer” than the copies. The copies were viewed by Zapruder and SS agents shortly after the assassination, so it is reasonable to assume the SS was aware of the quality difference. 

Everyone involved, not just the SS, was aware of the quality difference between the original and a copy.  And the White House and CIA, after seeing the briefing boards Sunday morning, were also quickly aware that the film contradicted their Oswald story, if they had not already known that

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

The FBI and Justice Department were discussing retaining the original film “strictly as evidence” on the 23rd despite pressure from the press. The FBI did not have the original film, but it is possible that a similar discussion occurred once it was realized that Zapruder had turned over the original film to Life. 

There is thus a non-zero probability that government officials reached out to Life to obtain the original film for analysis at some point on the weekend of assassination, like the WC did in Jan. ‘64. It is not remotely conclusive, but it gives us a starting point at least. We can look for any corroborating and/or contradictory evidence and revise our theory from there. 

It's a fact that the govt officials asked for briefing boards to help them see what happened.  That means that these officials would have discussed which version of the film they would need to do the boards.  If you think that is speculation, please explain why the version of the film would not have mattered to them.  Why it would not have been discussed.  Why they would have been satisfied to let Life have use of the original for their far less important task of publishing stills in their magazine.

It follows that these officials would have decided using the original film for the boards was clearly preferable.  For the reasons I have offered, which you have ignored. But not disputed.

If you disagree, if you think the govt officials would have been satisfied using a copy, please explain why. What good would a copy have done them if the boards revealed their Oswald story, already out on the streets, was wrong, which the boards quickly and clearly did.

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Was the original film brought to NPIC? 

All of the evidence, dating back to the Rockafeller Commission and corroborated by the ARRB, suggests that the NPIC analysis was performed on behalf of the Secret Service.

False.  Once the boards were finished early Sunday morning, Art Lundahl, the head of NPIC, took them to brief McCone, who then took them to brief Johnson. There is no record of the boards being used to brief the SS.  The boards were done for Johnson and the CIA, not the SS.  How could you have thought otherwise?

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

NPIC was located in Washington. The Secret Service sent a copy of the Z-film directly to Washington on the 23rd. The CIA told ROCKCOM that McCone was approached by the SS with a “copy of the Zapruder film”, and the NPIC witnesses in the 90s made a few statements suggesting the film was indeed a copy - such as the lack of sprocket hole images mentioned by Brugioni and Hunter. However the NPIC witnesses gave contradictory information - like McMahon believing he worked on an unslit original and Hunter saying essentially the exact opposite: that the film was NOT in unslit double-8 format.

Even without the NPIC witnesses, there is compelling evidence that the film studied by NPIC was the SS copy that was sent to Rowley in Washington on the 23rd, since that is the only copy of the Z-film known to have been in Washington on the weekend of the assassination. 

No, the SS copy is the only version *you know about* that was in DC at the time the boards were done. Your claim is based on the fact you have not found a CIA document admitting they had gotten the original from LIfe and sent it to their NPIC lab to be used for the boards. An obviously worthless basis for such a claim, alongside your acceptance of the word of the couriers that they were from the SS.  It's hard to decide which is more worthless.

Tom :  However, is it possible that the original film was diverted to NPIC that weekend? When would that have occurred? 

RO: That Saturday.

Tom:  All the evidence suggests that the original Z-film was taken from Zapruder by Richard Stolley on the morning of the 23rd and sent to Chicago. In Chicago, black-and-white copies of the film were made, and used to prepare the Nov. 29th issue of Life. 

We also have corroborating accounts from Stolley and Ray Rowan that the original film was sent to New York at some point on Saturday evening or Sunday, and shown to Life executives including CD Jackson. The evidence suggests that after viewing the film, Jackson reached out to Stolley’s boss, or something like that, and told him to obtain full rights to the film. Stolley did say the film sent to New York was a copy, but it is reasonable to assume he was incorrect on that point. 

RO:  Why did Jackson order Life to buy the full rights to the film?  You imply it was because he saw that the film contradicted the Oswald story, which would have been apparent from a first gen copy as well as the original.  If Life was acting as a corporation entirely separate from the CIA, did Jackson also order Life at that time to bury the film from public view for as long as possible after buying full rights? Which turned out to be almost 12 years.  If so, why?  

No, that Stolley was wrong is a reasonable assumption only to you.  It is more reasonable to assume Life made copies of the original it got from Zapruder and once the original was turned over to the CIA, they sent a copy to their New York headquarters, while keeping a copy to make the stills for their magazine.  Using a copy would have been sufficient for both of Life's purposes.  A copy was not sufficient for the briefing boards for several reasons as I have explained more than once.  Again, if you disagree, please explain why, rather than merely offering your boilerplate claim I am merely speculating. 

Tom:  New York gets the original film ~400 miles closer to NPIC than Chicago, but so far we do not have any evidence that the original film ever made it to Washington. 

RO: You have no reliable evidence that the original was sent to New York rather than to the NPIC.

Tom:  The logical thing to do here before proceeding would be a deep dive into the Z-film in New York that weekend, to see if we can find additional evidence. Chris Scally provided quotes from two books that mention CD Jackson’s reaction upon viewing the film on Sunday. We should check the footnotes and see if there’s any additional info. We also should look for press reports, statements from Life officials, and any documents that mention or allude to the New York trip. 

However, assuming the trail ends here, we’ll need to speculate to get the original film to NPIC. Since we do not have a full chain of custody, we can claim it is possible that the film was brought from New York to Washington, or to Washington directly and back to New York to be viewed at Life’s offices on Sunday, or something along those lines. 

So best case scenario, we have a valid argument that the original film at NPIC cannot be completely rejected based on the available evidence, but we have no positive evidence it actually occurred - and substantial evidence suggesting the film at NPIC was the SS first-day copy sent to Washington. 

RO:  We have "no positive evidence that original film showed up at NPIC", in your view, because you will only accept a document from the CIA acknowledging such.   A transparently foolish, and dare I say possibly disingenuous, position since you must know such documentation does not exist

Tom:  A reasonable conclusion would be the following: 

1. The evidence strongly suggests that the film studied at NPIC was the SS copy sent to Washington. 

2. There is a non-zero chance that the original film was obtained somehow from Life and brought to NPIC. However, barring additional evidence, we must remain skeptical. We certainly cannot present this theory as fact, and should acknowledge that our theory is likely incorrect. 

The next step should be to perform an exhaustive study of the documentary record to look for any corroboration. If we find any, we might have a decent case. If not, all we can do is speculate.

RO:  The necessity of performing "an exhaustive study of the documentary record" looking for CIA paper admitting they flew the original to their NPIC lab that Saturday is a precise statement of your myopia. You may wish to define "evidence" in such a way as to lead you there.  That's your prerogative. As I said, you can do that only by misunderstanding the very nature of what evidence is. 

Edited 30 minutes ago by Tom Gram

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

Roger, if you want to stop Jeremy from pointing out the parts of your theory that are speculative, you could try prefacing each of those parts by saying "it could be," "I believe that," or some such thing.

 But that would include ... pretty much everything, wouldn't it?

Roger writes:

Quote

You [Tom] think to be evidence all such information must be documented, contained in a document, in order to be considered something on which a conclusion may be based.

I hope Tom doesn't mind if I jump in here. It's true that not all evidence need be documentary. Roger's problem is that none of the evidence he has offered is documentary. He has built almost his entire argument on inferences from premises, along with a smattering of documentary evidence provided by others.

It's Roger's premises which have let him down, beginning with his most fundamental premise. He starts from the assumption that the people who implemented the lone-nut idea after the assassination were the same people who planned to blame a lone nut before the assassination. Well, that's something that doesn't appear to follow from any premises. It needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. 

As I have already pointed out, the simple fact that the JFK assassination was carried out in Dealey Plaza makes it clear that the lone-nut explanation cannot have been part of the plan. Whoever planned the assassination, using multiple gunmen, would have known that hundreds of spectators would be present; that many of those spectators would be carrying cameras; and that, consequently, there was a good chance that photographic evidence would emerge which would expose the use of multiple gunmen.

No rational planners can have set up that particular assassination with the intention of making it look like the work of a lone gunman. If that had been their intention, they wouldn't have carried it out in public using multiple gunmen. They would have either (a) carried it out somewhere much less public than Dealey Plaza, or (b) used an actual lone gunman, but in circumstances which ensured that the lone gunman would be successful. And that's leaving aside their apparent choice of patsy: someone whose personal history screamed International Communist Conspiracy.

If Roger thinks I've got that wrong, he needs to show why his all-powerful Bad Guys could rationally have carried out an assassination in public using multiple gunmen and expected no evidence of those multiple gunmen to emerge.

Now let's look at a selection of Roger's other unjustified assumptions. He writes:

Quote

I said it was a *fact* that the CIA had much more important reasons for using the original film than did Life. ... If you think Jackson would have rejected a CIA request for the original film, explain why.

Roger is assuming that just because CD Jackson had ties to the CIA, he was doing their bidding throughout the assassination weekend. But all of Jackson's behaviour that weekend was consistent with the commercial interests of Life. If Roger is claiming that Jackson was taking instructions from the CIA, it's up to him to support this claim with actual evidence.

The one thing Jackson did which was clearly in the interests of promoting the lone-nut idea (while also being in Life's commercial interests) was buying the physical film. But there is no obligation to speculate that this was done as part of a plan to alter the film. We can interpret this act in another way, in which Roger's "Johnson and the CIA" became aware that the Zapruder film contradicted the lone-nut story, and thought: hey, let's get our guy Jackson to buy up the film and keep it away from the general public until the fuss dies down!

There are two advantages of this scenario over Roger's scenario:

• It's consistent with the film at NPIC being the Secret Service's first-day copy, which is what the actual evidence indicates.
• Life buying up the film and keeping it largely out of public view for 12 years is what actually happened. We know that this actually happened because a ton of actual evidence exists to show that Life bought the film and kept it largely out of public view for 12 years.

Actual evidence exists for this simple scenario, but, so far, there is no actual evidence to support Roger's more convoluted 'the CIA grabbed the film and altered it at Hawkeye Works' scenario, which is entirely speculative. The reason Roger's scenario is entirely speculative is that it follows from an unjustified assumption.

Quote

these officials would have discussed which version of the film they would need to do the boards. ... It follows that these officials would have decided using the original film for the boards was clearly preferable.

If, as all the evidence indicates, the only film those officials had access to was the Secret Service's first-day copy, there's no need to speculate that they discussed using the original film at NPIC.

If Roger wants us to believe that any officials insisted on inspecting the original version of the film, he needs to supply some actual evidence to that effect, and stop making stuff up. As I pointed out earlier, there's no reason to suppose that any memos to that effect would have been censored, since a desire to see the original film would not imply that anything untoward would happen to the film as a result.

Where are those memos? Plenty of internal memos and other documents from that weekend survive and are available online. Has Roger even looked for any documentary evidence to support his claims?

Roger has supplied no documentary evidence that anyone in Washington insisted on viewing the original film and was not satisfied with only viewing a copy. Until he does, there is no reason to believe that claim. It's just empty speculation, based on empty assumptions.

And finally:

Quote

We have "no positive evidence that original film showed up at NPIC", in your view, because you will only accept a document from the CIA acknowledging such.

That's what positive evidence is: documentary evidence. No such evidence exists that anything other than the Secret Service's first-day copy was taken to NPIC over that weekend.

[Roger Odisio]

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

 But that would include ... pretty much everything, wouldn't it?

Roger writes:

I hope Tom doesn't mind if I jump in here. It's true that not all evidence need be documentary. Roger's problem is that none of the evidence he has offered is documentary. He has built almost his entire argument on inferences from premises, along with a smattering of documentary evidence provided by others.

 

The good news, Jeremy, that you have been dragged kicking and screaming into responding to at least some of the points I made, rather than relying on your where's the memo sophistry.  The bad news is your responses have been uniformly flops.

 

Roger writes:

 

  Quote

You [Tom] think to be evidence all such information must be documented, contained in a document, in order to be considered something on which a conclusion may be based.

 

J:  I hope Tom doesn't mind if I jump in here. It's true that not all evidence need be documentary. Roger's problem is that none of the evidence he has offered is documentary. He has built almost his entire argument on inferences from premises, along with a smattering of documentary evidence provided by others.

 

RO: You've stacked both a logical fallacy and a falsehood in this one paragraph.  If it's true that not all evidence need be documentary (it is true; glad you have finally admitted that after constantly implying otherwise), it does *not* follow that it's a problem if none of the evidence is documentary.  

 

The falsehood:  that I have build almost (the usual weasel word) my entire argument on inferences from premises, rather than facts.

 

J:  It's Roger's premises which have let him down, beginning with his most fundamental premise. He starts from the assumption that the people who implemented the lone-nut idea after the assassination were the same people who planned to blame a lone nut before the assassination. Well, that's something that doesn't appear to follow from any premises. It needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. 

 

RO:  This is an amazing assertion:  that the people who implemented, and presumably planned the murder were not the same people who covered it up.  Or if they were, that needs to be demonstrated somehow.

 

I've already answered this but you ignored it in favor of multiple, where is the documentary evidence, responses.

 

But let me ask you first.  How did the two separate groups theory of yours work? Did the groups know each other?  Did either know what the other was doing?  Was there no coordination between them?  Or did a whistle blow, right after the murder, and the second team took over for the first?

 

The coverup began within hours of the murder:  The message to the planes coming back to DC, the snatching of the body from Parkland, the murder of Oswald Sunday morning, etc.  I take this as evidence that a coordinated coverup was preplanned with the murder as one piece and by the same people. 

 

It seems axiomatic to me that the killers would not have carried out such a risky and high stakes murder without having a plan in place to cover up their involvement and blame someone else.  And also something you never mention: without a plan to get the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place.  Was that part done separately by a third group, Jeremy?

 

Just a few, quick points to expose the lunacy of your claim.

 

Let's see your alternative explanation.

 

J:  As I have already pointed out, the simple fact that the JFK assassination was carried out in Dealey Plaza makes it clear that the lone-nut explanation cannot have been part of the plan.

 

RO:  Oops, nonsense right out of the shoot. The DP murder as carried out in no way precludes the use of the Oswald story.  How could it?  They both happened.

 

J:  Whoever planned the assassination, using multiple gunmen, would have known that hundreds of spectators would be present; that many of those spectators would be carrying cameras; and that, consequently, there was a good chance that photographic evidence would emerge which would expose the use of multiple gunmen.

 

RO:  Yep.  You got something right.  The killers expected that.

 

J:  No rational planners can have set up that particular assassination with the intention of making it look like the work of a lone gunman. If that had been their intention, they wouldn't have carried it out in public using multiple gunmen. They would have either (a) carried it out somewhere much less public than Dealey Plaza, or (b) used an actual lone gunman, but in circumstances which ensured that the lone gunman would be successful. And that's leaving aside their apparent choice of patsy: someone whose personal history screamed International Communist Conspiracy.

 

RO: Mindless speculation that doesn't cover the possibilities:  Or (c) the killers would have worked out a coverup plan to conceal their involvement and blame someone else.  They would have calculated they could control the WC to frame Oswald, intimidate or kill most of the potential naysayers, and in large part the press would report only what they wanted them to.  They concluded they could murder Kennedy in a crossfire and blame Oswald. 

 

Making sure they got Kennedy was the killers' top priority. They concluded a crossfire in cramped place like DP was necessary.  They would deal with the obvious discrepancy of the Oswald story in their plan for the coverup.  A reason why the coverup was crucial and had to be worked pre-murder by the killers.

 

They calculated correctly.  That's what happened.  Your mystery is just another a false mystery, belied by the facts as we know them..  

 

J:  If Roger thinks I've got that wrong, he needs to show why his all-powerful Bad Guys could rationally have carried out an assassination in public using multiple gunmen and expected no evidence of those multiple gunmen to emerge.

 

RO:  Because, as usual you slip in another distortion to make your point.  Whack that false strawman.   The killers expected no such thing.  Within their coverup plan, they planned for ways to deal with the discrepancy they had created, as I have already explained and you ignored so you could falsely claim otherwise.

 

J:  Now let's look at a selection of Roger's other unjustified assumptions. He writes:

 

  Quote

I said it was a *fact* that the CIA had much more important reasons for using the original film than did Life. ... If you think Jackson would have rejected a CIA request for the original film, explain why.

 

Roger is assuming that just because CD Jackson had ties to the CIA, he was doing their bidding throughout the assassination weekend. But all of Jackson's behaviour that weekend was consistent with the commercial interests of Life. If Roger is claiming that Jackson was taking instructions from the CIA, it's up to him to support this claim with actual evidence.

 

RO:  Another distortion.  It's become clear your approach is to distort what I said and then attack the distortion.

 

Jackson's  ties to the CIA are true, a fact you and Tom have tried to minimize.  But nowhere in the discussion of what happened to the original film on Saturday did I assume he was doing the CIA's bidding the whole weekend.  It's certainly possible, but no such claim was necessary to support what I actually did say.

 

What I said was, when the desire of the officials in DC to use the original film for the briefing boards was made known to Jackson, it's clear he would not have insisted on keeping the original to make stills for Life.  He knew that federal govt's  interests were far more important than his interest in making stills for the magazine. 

 

If you disagree, explain why Jackson would have turned down DC (his superiors in one sense) and give us the reasons he used.  Instead of seeking shelter in your requests for documentary evidence that (1) the officials did in fact prefer the original (which you abandon when it suits you), or (2) would have approached Jackson to get it.  Again your approach: lets' ignore the plain logic and ask for documents you know do not exist.  

 

The idea that all of Jackson's behavior that weekend was consistent with Life's commercial interests is nuts. Life paid $1.5 million (in today's money) for what was a commercial gold mine, then refused to cash it in by showing the film publicly. They were hiding the film, Jeremy, not making a financial return on such a large investment. They knew what the film showed, as I'm sure you understand.

 

When a bootleg copy was shown to the public in 1975 their job of hiding the film was over.  They gave it back to Z for $1.  You must know this, which makes your claim even more baffling.   

 

J:  The one thing Jackson did which was clearly in the interests of promoting the lone-nut idea (while also being in Life's commercial interests) was buying the physical film. But there is no obligation to speculate that this was done as part of a plan to alter the film. We can interpret this act in another way, in which Roger's "Johnson and the CIA" became aware that the Zapruder film contradicted the lone-nut story, and thought: hey, let's get our guy Jackson to buy up the film and keep it away from the general public until the fuss dies down!

 

RO:  You offer this scenario right after claiming everything Jackson did was in Life's commercial interest!  You can't even keep your various false claims straight.

 

It's good that you now acknowledge that the DC officials became aware that the Z film contradicted the Oswald tale they had already put out as the official story.  When did this happen, Jeremy?  Was it before or after they ordered the briefing boards made for them?  Here is another chance for you to explain why these officials weren't interested in using the original film for those boards once they realized it contradicted their story.  Why they would have deferred to Life magazine?    

 

J: There are two advantages of this scenario over Roger's scenario:

 

• It's consistent with the film at NPIC being the Secret Service's first-day copy, which is what the actual evidence indicates.

RO:  Consistently repeated this falsehood doesn't make it true.  You have no evidence that the film delivered to the NPIC that Saturday came from the SS, other than the couriers said they were from the SS.  That may be your most laughable assertion.  It's certainly not believable evidence of anything. 

• J:  Life buying up the film and keeping it largely out of public view for 12 years is what actually happened. We know that this actually happened because a ton of actual evidence exists to show that Life bought the film and kept it largely out of public view for 12 years.

RO:  This is probably your strangest assertion.  You're verifying the point I just made, which of course can't be denied, that Life buried the film from public view!  Which also shows your claim the Life was acting solely in their own commercial interest is false.

 

J:  Actual evidence exists for this simple scenario, but, so far, there is no actual evidence to support Roger's more convoluted 'the CIA grabbed the film and altered it at Hawkeye Works' scenario, which is entirely speculative. The reason Roger's scenario is entirely speculative is that it follows from an unjustified assumption.

 

RO:  Yep.  There are no memos that show what the CIA did.  Is there some point you're making here, knowing there would be no such memos even if true?

  Quote

these officials would have discussed which version of the film they would need to do the boards. ... It follows that these officials would have decided using the original film for the boards was clearly preferable.

 

J:  If, as all the evidence indicates, the only film those officials had access to was the Secret Service's first-day copy, there's no need to speculate that they discussed using the original film at NPIC.

 

RO:  Another whopper.  The govt officials responsible for investigating the murder only had access to the SS copy!  False.  They knew Life had the original.  It's also true their needs for the original were more important than Life's   Why would they have deferred to Life?

 

J:  If Roger wants us to believe that any officials insisted on inspecting the original version of the film, he needs to supply some actual evidence to that effect, and stop making stuff up. As I pointed out earlier, there's no reason to suppose that any memos to that effect would have been censored, since a desire to see the original film would not imply that anything untoward would happen to the film as a result.

 

Where are those memos? Plenty of internal memos and other documents from that weekend survive and are available online. Has Roger even looked for any documentary evidence to support his claims?

 

Roger has supplied no documentary evidence that anyone in Washington insisted on viewing the original film and was not satisfied with only viewing a copy. Until he does, there is no reason to believe that claim. It's just empty speculation, based on empty assumptions.

 

RO:  More where is the CIA memo blather that you never get tired repeating. Including this time the claim that the memos that showed the officials wanted to use the original in their study would still exist, because they would imply nothing "untoward". 

 

Somehow you forget that such a memo would contradict the story accepted for decades, which you still believe, that the original went straight to Chicago and only there. Because it raises the question  I am asking:  why then, if they preferred the original  didn't the CIA take it for the purposes of there much more important federal investigation.  Such a memo likely would have exposed the whole thing about briefing boards being done for those officials (which is why they wanted the original), also submerged for decades.  I could go on but the idea that a memo showing officials wanted the original film would have caused all kinds of problems for their cover story, and yours, that Life had the original the whole weekend. 

 

The point is, you spout all of this as if govt officials wanting to use the original for their briefing boards does not flow logically from the facts that the original film was superior for their purpose, it existed, and Life had it.  That's what you must explain, at a minimum.

 

J:  And finally:

 

  Quote

We have "no positive evidence that original film showed up at NPIC", in your view, because you will only accept a document from the CIA acknowledging such.

 

That's what positive evidence is: documentary evidence. No such evidence exists that anything other than the Secret Service's first-day copy was taken to NPIC over that weekend.

 

RO:  Amazing.  You're back to claiming that what you call "positive evidence" (whatever that is) consists only of documentary evidence.  False. Completing a full circle of nonsense.

[Jean Ceulemans]

I´m digging in from the beginning, wanted to make some things clear for ME to understand, I´m getting older... and also slower...

So, about "Bill Smith", the SS guy that wasn´t really SS, from what I can read he had some kind of alias.

Do we have a chronology of his actions starting when he walked in (?)

Is ALL we have on him from this old testimony? Other people NOT noticing him?  As it seems at some moments he was making the calls? Odd.. 

All in all he plays a key roll, right? In that case a couple of other testimonies could be extremely usefull.

If there is nothing more on him, well nothing to conclude either.  I have never heard of a "fake" dude having access to such a place... Unless someone up the hierarchy has given an OK to the others, they would know not his real name, but surely the name of the superior.

Anyway, I hope security was better compared to DPD (there it seemed non-existant).  I´m pretty sure CIA keeps it´s doos closed.

So, what´s with Bill that we know for a fact?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Jean Ceulemans

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

So, about "Bill Smith", the SS guy that wasn´t really SS, from what I can read he had some kind of alias.

 

Sure sounds like a spook to me.

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I´m digging in from the beginning, wanted to make some things clear for ME to understand, I´m getting older... and also slower...

So, about "Bill Smith", the SS guy that wasn´t really SS, from what I can read he had some kind of alias.

Do we have a chronology of his actions starting when he walked in (?)

Is ALL we have on him from this old testimony? Other people NOT noticing him?  As it seems at some moments he was making the calls? Odd.. 

All in all he plays a key roll, right? In that case a couple of other testimonies could be extremely usefull.

If there is nothing more on him, well nothing to conclude either.  I have never heard of a "fake" dude having access to such a place... Unless someone up the hierarchy has given an OK to the others, they would know not his real name, but surely the name of the superior.

Anyway, I hope security was better compared to DPD (there it seemed non-existant).  I´m pretty sure CIA keeps it´s doos closed.

So, what´s with Bill that we know for a fact?

It's doubtful there was a "Bill Smith" or anyone using that name. An NPIC employee tried to recall the circumstances of their studyingthe Z-film in the days after the assassination, fifteen years after the fact, and said he thought some guy named "Bill Smith" or something like it brought the film to them. If I recall he thought he was an SS agent. Sure enough the SS had a copy of the film and was anxious to get it analyzed. So it makes perfect sense that an SS agent with a boring name brought the film to NPIC.

Now, through the conspiracy prism, it has become a CIA agent who was using an alias. But that's just speculation... There is nothing in the record to indicate someone named or even pretending to be named "Bill Smith" brought the film to NPIC. No receipt. No memo. Nothing. It's just an old man's grasping at straws. Now, the head of the SS' investigation was Thomas Kelley--Tom Kelley--which is a pretty boring name when you think about it. So it wouldn't surprise me if the film was brought in by Kelley. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Pat Speer