The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

According to Peter Dale Scott, whose work you hold in high esteem, the plotters could have chosen Phase 2 -- lone gunman --  had they wanted to. So are you saying here that the plotters had already chosen Phase 1 -- conspiracy --by the time the shooting with multiple shooters had begun?

Yes. My point was that the circumstances of the assassination (multiple gunmen in front of numerous spectators with cameras) indicate that whoever instigated the assassination was happy for the public to believe that the assassination was a conspiracy and not the work of a lone nut.

If anyone can argue the opposite, that the actual circumstances of the assassination implicated a lone nut rather than a conspiracy, please go ahead.

Quote

My point is that the evidence indicates that the decision between Phase 1 and Phase 2 to be made by the plotters wasn't meant to be made for at least a few days after the killing.

The evidence I cited (the actual circumstances of the assassination) indicates that any such decision had been made long before JFK arrived in Dallas.

Quote

It is clear to me, and the evidence shows, that the plotters decided that "the best evidence" for the case needed alteration to make it compatible with Phase-2 (lone nut), whereas the rest of the coverup could be done ad hoc.

Sandy is making two assumptions here: that alteration of physical evidence was necessary, and that the people who instigated the assassination also instigated that alteration. This may be clear to Sandy, but I don't see any good evidence to support either of those assumptions.

Quote

the altered [best evidence" would indicate that Oswald did it alone, thus making it easy to blame Oswald. Which would allow the government to shut down any further investigation

Pinning the blame on Oswald alone did not require any alteration or faking of any of the physical evidence, whether it was JFK's body or the Zapruder film or the Altgens 6 photograph or the Moorman photograph.

There is no good evidence that any of these things were altered or faked, let alone that the people who instigated the assassination were in a position to alter any of the physical evidence, or that they even wanted to.

Quote

It is inconceivable that a post-assassination-initiated coverup could have possibly triggered that early surgery.

I'd agree with that, if any "early surgery" took place. But there's no good evidence that it did. Lifton's body-alteration claims have been discussed in detail on numerous other threads; this thread is about the NPIC event.

Quote

I can give two possible ways that could have happened.

That was in response to my question: Can anyone make the case that the assassination was intended to look like the work of a lone nut? Sorry if my meaning wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to ways in which the assassination could be interpreted after the event as the work of a lone nut, but to the actual circumstances of the shooting. Carrying it out in a public place, in front of numerous spectators with cameras, suggests that it was intended to look like the work of multiple gunmen. Do the actual circumstances of the shooting indicate that it was intended to look like the work of a lone gunman rather than multiple gunmen?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

The idea the Jackson and the CIA considered which party should get to use the original Z film is a logical inference from what we know

No, it isn't. As I've already explained, Roger's scenario does not follow inevitably "from what we know". It is pure speculation, as we see from Roger's next paragraph:

Quote

They knew that Life had the original.  CD Jackson had worked for the CIA and  understood that the officials' need for the original film as a national security matter far surpassed Life's desire to make stills for its magazine.  It was actually a simple matter for the CIA to take the original film for Life, with Jackson's agreement, and send it to their labs so the briefing boards could be done

If Roger wants us to believe that the CIA instructed Jackson to obtain the original film for them, and that the CIA then took the film to the NPIC, he needs to provide actual evidence that these things happened. But there isn't any, is there?

Just because one scenario is theoretically possible, does not mean that it actually occurred. In this case, it is also theoretically possible that a different scenario occurred, namely that the CIA did not instruct Jackson to obtain the original film for them. To tip the balance in his favour, Roger needs to provide actual evidence. He hasn't done so. He seems to have an aversion to actual evidence.

Quote

You have repeatedly asserted that the film used for the briefing boards was SS's copy because that was all that was available to the officials.  They had no choice.  But that is false as we can see.

I've explained, several times now, why the film that was taken to the NPIC can only reasonably have been the Secret Service's copy. It's because that's the only conclusion that is consistent with the actual documentary evidence which exists. This really isn't difficult to understand.

Roger keeps claiming that "Johnson and the CIA" or "the CIA" or "the planners" might, in theory, have obtained the original film from Life. It's true; they might have done that. Equally, they might not have done that. In the absence of actual evidence, both conclusions are speculative.

But there is actual evidence to support one of those conclusions, isn't there? One conclusion is supported by evidence, while the other remains based purely on speculation. Unfortunately, it's Roger's preferred conclusion which is based on nothing but speculation.

Roger gives the impression that he hasn't even attempted to find documentary evidence to support his speculative scenario. How can he claim, as he has done several times, that the Bad Guys destroyed all the evidence, if he hasn't even bothered to look for any evidence? I really don't understand Roger's continued preference for pure speculation over actual evidence.

Quote

The lives of the planners were on the line.  Yet you want us to believe they would have gone ahead with the murder without a plan in place to get away with it!

I explained what that plan was: make the assassination look like the work of the Cuban or Soviet regimes. I assume Roger agrees that the circumstances of the shooting suggest that the conspirators wanted the assassination to look like a conspiracy that was carried out by people other than the actual conspirators.

Edited July 13 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Changed a 'that' to a 'which', for clarity

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There is no good evidence that any of these things were altered or faked, let alone that the people who instigated the assassination were in a position to alter any of the physical evidence, or that they even wanted to.

Surely there is and surely they were:

Summary
To achieve the result of changing the apparent speed of the car from      mph to    mph,       is the primary technique you would use. The        method mainly affects the appearance of       and does not significantly impact the      speed of the      . Therefore, the change in       between the       and the        from your original result is primarily due to       , not the        method.

What you see is not what you're getting.

 

 

[Tom Gram]

I had a totally different reply written out about the Secret Service angle but I’ll start with this. I may have found corroboration from CIA that the NPIC event occurred on the weekend of the assassination. Check out the faint marginalia on the left of this handwritten cover sheet to the NPIC notes sent to ROCKCOM.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=105096#relPageId=14

It’s not particularly legible, but the first words look like: 

day after 

23 Nov. ‘63. 

_______________

several days

after

assassination 

I cannot read the notes below at all other than the name “Capt. Pierre Sands”. Maybe someone better at reading cursive can figure it out. 

It’s hard to say who took these notes. They do not appear on this copy of the sheet, which is directly from the ROCKCOM files. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=5

They only appear in a copy of the file obtained by the HSCA, which suggests the notes may have been taken by HSCA staff. 

However, I suspect the notes were taken by the CIA during the ROCKCOM era, in a copy of the original file that was subsequently turned over to the HSCA. The reference to Sands made me think of this mini-memo, which I still think is a very promising lead: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=105096#relPageId=22

Someone, it is not clear who, reached out to John Hicks at NPIC for info on the analysis notes. Hicks called “Sandy”, who I’m assuming is a nickname for Pierre Sands. “Sandy” said he couldn’t recall when he took the notes, but said he told ROCKCOM during his deposition that the notes were taken “several days after the Kennedy assassination”. 

The only date on the memo is “5/27”. Since the NPIC file was turned over to ROCKCOM on 5/13/75, it seems clear that the date is 5/27/75, and this “Sandy” was likely deposed between 5/13 and 5/27. 

There was also apparently an oral briefing done by Hicks for Bob Olsen of the CIA OLC on 5/14/75: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=105096#relPageId=12

So I suspect the marginalia was written in the file during some of these internal discussions with Hicks and/or Sands, after the notes were turned over to ROCKCOM. The “several days after assassination” bit looks like a reference to the info received from “Sandy”/Sands. 

The “day after, 23 Nov ‘63” part, in my opinion, looks like evidence that someone confirmed the actual analysis occurred on the 23rd, and the notes were written later, which aligns with the ARRB witnesses not remembering the bulk of the notes. 

I previously thought it was still possible the NPIC witnesses just forgot the date. I now think the evidence suggests the analysis was done on the 23rd, and Sands wrote the “Life magazine” notes later using the briefing board frames as a reference. 

If someone could track down Sands’ ROCKCOM deposition, or prove it is missing from the ARC, that would be pretty interesting.

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

No, it isn't. As I've already explained, Roger's scenario does not follow inevitably "from what we know". It is pure speculation, as we see from Roger's next paragraph:

If Roger wants us to believe that the CIA instructed Jackson to obtain the original film for them, and that the CIA then took the film to the NPIC, he needs to provide actual evidence that these things happened. But there isn't any, is there?

Just because one scenario is theoretically possible, does not mean that it actually occurred. In this case, it is also theoretically possible that a different scenario occurred, namely that the CIA did not instruct Jackson to obtain the original film for them. To tip the balance in his favour, Roger needs to provide actual evidence. He hasn't done so. He seems to have an aversion to actual evidence.

I've explained, several times now, why the film that was taken to the NPIC can only reasonably have been the Secret Service's copy. It's because that's the only conclusion that is consistent with the actual documentary evidence which exists. This really isn't difficult to understand.

Roger keeps claiming that "Johnson and the CIA" or "the CIA" or "the planners" might, in theory, have obtained the original film from Life. It's true; they might have done that. Equally, they might not have done that. In the absence of actual evidence, both conclusions are speculative.

But there is actual evidence to support one of those conclusions, isn't there? One conclusion is supported by evidence, while the other remains based purely on speculation. Unfortunately, it's Roger's preferred conclusion which is based on nothing but speculation.

Roger gives the impression that he hasn't even attempted to find documentary evidence to support his speculative scenario. How can he claim, as he has done several times, that the Bad Guys destroyed all the evidence, if he hasn't even bothered to look for any evidence? I really don't understand Roger's continued preference for pure speculation over actual evidence.

I explained what that plan was: make the assassination look like the work of the Cuban or Soviet regimes. I assume Roger agrees that the circumstances of the shooting suggest that the conspirators wanted the assassination to look like a conspiracy that was carried out by people other than the actual conspirators.

It's important to note that the majority of law enforcement within or on the fringes of the plaza heard something from the knoll, and that a number of witnesses on the railroad bridge saw smoke in that area. As a result, it's hard to fathom that the the planners of this "event" "wanted" everyone to conclude all shots came from behind, and were fired by little ole' Oswald. 

IF they wanted everyone to think the shots came from the building, they would not have included shots or sounds from the front within their plan, IMO. I mean, they could have had multiple shooters in the building, or in the neighboring buildings, and people would have readily swallowed that all these shots came from one building. But the loud sound or sounds heard from west of the building? Many witnesses could not then or in the years to follow reconcile that with the shots coming from behind...

 

Edited July 13 by Pat Speer

[Roger Odisio]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

No, it isn't. As I've already explained, Roger's scenario does not follow inevitably "from what we know". It is pure speculation, as we see from Roger's next paragraph:

If Roger wants us to believe that the CIA instructed Jackson to obtain the original film for them, and that the CIA then took the film to the NPIC, he needs to provide actual evidence that these things happened. But there isn't any, is there?

Just because one scenario is theoretically possible, does not mean that it actually occurred. In this case, it is also theoretically possible that a different scenario occurred, namely that the CIA did not instruct Jackson to obtain the original film for them. To tip the balance in his favour, Roger needs to provide actual evidence. He hasn't done so. He seems to have an aversion to actual evidence.

I've explained, several times now, why the film that was taken to the NPIC can only reasonably have been the Secret Service's copy. It's because that's the only conclusion that is consistent with the actual documentary evidence which exists. This really isn't difficult to understand.

Roger keeps claiming that "Johnson and the CIA" or "the CIA" or "the planners" might, in theory, have obtained the original film from Life. It's true; they might have done that. Equally, they might not have done that. In the absence of actual evidence, both conclusions are speculative.

But there is actual evidence to support one of those conclusions, isn't there? One conclusion is supported by evidence, while the other remains based purely on speculation. Unfortunately, it's Roger's preferred conclusion which is based on nothing but speculation.

Roger gives the impression that he hasn't even attempted to find documentary evidence to support his speculative scenario. How can he claim, as he has done several times, that the Bad Guys destroyed all the evidence, if he hasn't even bothered to look for any evidence? I really don't understand Roger's continued preference for pure speculation over actual evidence.

I explained what that plan was: make the assassination look like the work of the Cuban or Soviet regimes. I assume Roger agrees that the circumstances of the shooting suggest that the conspirators wanted the assassination to look like a conspiracy that was carried out by people other than the actual conspirators.

It takes only a brief reflection on Jeremy's current scenario to conclude it is internally inconsistent and quickly falls apart.

 

We start from the same place.  JFK was murdered by conspirators using multiple shooters from different directions.

 

Jeremy asserts that the killer's plan was to blame the Soviets and Cubans for the murder. They acknowledged the murder was the work of conspirators, just others, not them.

 

But at the same time Jeremy argues in another note that the killers had no coverup plan to get away with the murder.  The coverup was planned and executed by a completely different group.  OOPs.

 

As we shall see below, he needs to make this particularly silly argument in order to try to explain what happened to his original claim that the initial idea was to blame the SU and Cubans, rather than Oswald, which we can all see is what actually happened..

 

I've already argued how preposterous it is to claim the killers would have gone ahead with the murder without a plan in place to get away with it.  But let's set that aside for the moment.  It gets worse.

 

We know from the *evidence*  of the coverup as it preceded that weekend and beyond, which I've spelled out in some detail, that right from the beginning, the conspirators were blaming Oswald, not the Soviets and Cubans.

 

So how does Jeremy explain this?  What happened to the plan to blame the Soviets and Cubans?

 

Jeremy's answer is simple: he claims the murder and coverup were run by different, somehow unconnected, groups!!

 

Initially I was puzzled as to why Jeremy would make such an obviously ludicrous claim that the killers went ahead with the murder without a plan in place to get away with it. And that others, unconnected to them, ran the coverup, on which the success of the whole endeavor depended  Even small time crooks wouldn't do that.  And these conspirators were professionals.

 

Well, what choice did Jeremy have?  How else could he explain his claim, made in this note, that the killers actually wanted everyone to believe JFK was killed by conspirators, just not them?  And therefore (the claim Jeremy is straining to justify), there was no need to alter the Z film because all it showed was murder by some conspirators.

 

Yep, Jeremy asserts, the original SU/Cuban plan got discarded in favor of blaming Oswald because a new, unconnected group took over to run the coverup, and they wanted to go in a new direction. For some reason.  Btw, don't ask Jeremy for evidence, documentary or otherwise, for this claim.  That's Jeremy's schtick.  No fair asking it of him.   

 

Remove that puerile and illogical nonsense and it's back to square one for Jeremy.  Back to claiming things like federal officials had no choice but to use a copy for their briefing boards that weekend.  And asking where are the CIA memos that verify (1) they wanted to use the original film for their boards, and (2) they made that known to CD Jackson, if he didn't already know that, in order to send the original film to their labs.

 

Questions for which Jeremy will not accept the obvious answer:  Those documents do not exist and almost certainly never did.  The disingenuousness of asking for them, given what we *both* know about the CIA and its record the last 60 years, is staggering.

 

Some conspirators did in fact want to use the murder to blame Cuba and the Soviets.  But that idea was quickly dropped after the murder, if not before, in favor of framing Oswald.  If that was not done because of Jeremy's claim, why did it happen?

 

Lyndon Johnson, the new president who would be responsible for making the claim against the SU and Cubans and dealing with the ramifications of it, wanted no part of it.  He had lusted after the presidency too long to countenance the possibility of everything going up in smoke in a war with the SU at the beginning of his taking office.

 

And so, framing Oswald became the central proposition in the coverup plan that the conspirators hoped would allow them to get away with the murder.

 

Jeremy concludes:  "I assume Roger agrees that the circumstances of the shooting suggest that the conspirators wanted the assassination to look like a conspiracy that was carried out by people other than the actual conspirators".  But he knows better.  He knows I don't believe any such nonsense, as I have explained.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

It takes only a brief reflection on Jeremy's current scenario to conclude it is internally inconsistent and quickly falls apart.

 

We start from the same place.  JFK was murdered by conspirators using multiple shooters from different directions.

 

Jeremy asserts that the killer's plan was to blame the Soviets and Cubans for the murder. They acknowledged the murder was the work of conspirators, just others, not them.

 

But at the same time Jeremy argues in another note that the killers had no coverup plan to get away with the murder.  The coverup was planned and executed by a completely different group.  OOPs.

 

As we shall see below, he needs to make this particularly silly argument in order to try to explain what happened to his original claim that the initial idea was to blame the SU and Cubans, rather than Oswald, which we can all see is what actually happened..

 

I've already argued how preposterous it is to claim the killers would have gone ahead with the murder without a plan in place to get away with it.  But let's set that aside for the moment.  It gets worse.

 

We know from the *evidence*  of the coverup as it preceded that weekend and beyond, which I've spelled out in some detail, that right from the beginning, the conspirators were blaming Oswald, not the Soviets and Cubans.

 

So how does Jeremy explain this?  What happened to the plan to blame the Soviets and Cubans?

 

Jeremy's answer is simple: he claims the murder and coverup were run by different, somehow unconnected, groups!!

 

Initially I was puzzled as to why Jeremy would make such an obviously ludicrous claim that the killers went ahead with the murder without a plan in place to get away with it. And that others, unconnected to them, ran the coverup, on which the success of the whole endeavor depended  Even small time crooks wouldn't do that.  And these conspirators were professionals.

 

Well, what choice did Jeremy have?  How else could he explain his claim, made in this note, that the killers actually wanted everyone to believe JFK was killed by conspirators, just not them?  And therefore (the claim Jeremy is straining to justify), there was no need to alter the Z film because all it showed was murder by some conspirators.

 

Yep, Jeremy asserts, the original SU/Cuban plan got discarded in favor of blaming Oswald because a new, unconnected group took over to run the coverup, and they wanted to go in a new direction. For some reason.  Btw, don't ask Jeremy for evidence, documentary or otherwise, for this claim.  That's Jeremy's schtick.  No fair asking it of him.   

 

Remove that puerile and illogical nonsense and it's back to square one for Jeremy.  Back to claiming things like federal officials had no choice but to use a copy for their briefing boards that weekend.  And asking where are the CIA memos that verify (1) they wanted to use the original film for their boards, and (2) they made that known to CD Jackson, if he didn't already know that, in order to send the original film to their labs.

 

Questions for which Jeremy will not accept the obvious answer:  Those documents do not exist and almost certainly never did.  The disingenuousness of asking for them, given what we *both* know about the CIA and its record the last 60 years, is staggering.

 

Some conspirators did in fact want to use the murder to blame Cuba and the Soviets.  But that idea was quickly dropped after the murder, if not before, in favor of framing Oswald.  If that was not done because of Jeremy's claim, why did it happen?

 

Lyndon Johnson, the new president who would be responsible for making the claim against the SU and Cubans and dealing with the ramifications of it, wanted no part of it.  He had lusted after the presidency too long to countenance the possibility of everything going up in smoke in a war with the SU at the beginning of his taking office.

 

And so, framing Oswald became the central proposition in the coverup plan that the conspirators hoped would allow them to get away with the murder.

 

Jeremy concludes:  "I assume Roger agrees that the circumstances of the shooting suggest that the conspirators wanted the assassination to look like a conspiracy that was carried out by people other than the actual conspirators".  But he knows better.  He knows I don't believe any such nonsense, as I have explained.

 

 

 

FWIW, I have been to a number of conferences in which this topic has been discussed, and have had many personal talks with people whose primary focus is on who did it, and the vast majority of "scholars" if you will believe the assassination and cover-up were separate acts. 

To the minds of many, the CIA was somehow connected to the assassination.

To the minds of almost everyone, the FBI was involved in the cover-up. 

Even a surface understanding of the history of the time should lead one to understand that the FBI hated the CIA, and would not be involved in one of their plots. 

So I seems apparent to some, myself included, that the "plan" was to kill JFK and blame it on the commies, and that Johnson, Hoover, and Warren then concurred on blaming it on Oswald. 

Now, Johnson was a sneaky SOB. So it wouldn't surprise me if he had his hands in both pies--that is, that he encouraged the first plot, but then changed course after the fact. 

WW III would have been a bit messy, after all, and damaging to his legacy. 

[Roger Odisio]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

FWIW, I have been to a number of conferences in which this topic has been discussed, and have had many personal talks with people whose primary focus is on who did it, and the vast majority of "scholars" if you will believe the assassination and cover-up were separate acts. 

To the minds of many, the CIA was somehow connected to the assassination.

To the minds of almost everyone, the FBI was involved in the cover-up. 

Even a surface understanding of the history of the time should lead one to understand that the FBI hated the CIA, and would not be involved in one of their plots. 

So I seems apparent to some, myself included, that the "plan" was to kill JFK and blame it on the commies, and that Johnson, Hoover, and Warren then concurred on blaming it on Oswald. 

Now, Johnson was a sneaky SOB. So it wouldn't surprise me if he had his hands in both pies--that is, that he encouraged the first plot, but then changed course after the fact. 

WW III would have been a bit messy, after all, and damaging to his legacy. 

Pat,

You don't identify who these planners were who had wanted to murder Kennedy as a pretext to go after Castro, but it's safe to say they were certifiable.  By late '63 the Soviets had reached rough parity in nukes with the US.  It was clear to any thinking person a nuclear war was unwinnable.  Mutually Assured Destruction was about to replace defense systems as the real deterrent preventing a nuclear war. Certainly that was Kennedy's view.  Krushchev would have had to respond to any real threat to Castro.

Curtis Lemay existed but it is unlikely he was a leading voice among the planners.

Johnson was a sneaky SOB to be sure, but it's not credible that he would have first encouraged the plan to blame it on Castro and then changed his mind after the murder.  He was going to be the president and there is no way he would have wanted to risk war with the SU right after taking office under any circumstances.

This is one reason to think Johnson was involved in the planning.  He had an interest in making sure the planners weren't going to blame Castro and expect him to go along.

Moreover, can we take seriously who these planners were, how powerful they were, and the enormous and risky the task killing Kennedy was?  Their life was on the line; they would not have carried out the murder without having a clear coverup plan in place.  Including a decision about who they were going to blame for the murder to divert attention from themselves, which was a central piece of that plan.  And a crucial piece, if the coverup were to succeed.

The planners would never have left the the decision about who to blame until later, until after the murder.  That they didn't do that is made clear by how swiftly after the murder officials began fingering Oswald, as well as their relative silence about Castro. 

[Bill Fite]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's important to note that the majority of law enforcement within or on the fringes of the plaza heard something from the knoll, and that a number of witnesses on the railroad bridge saw smoke in that area. As a result, it's hard to fathom that the the planners of this "event" "wanted" everyone to conclude all shots came from behind, and were fired by little ole' Oswald. 

Hi Pat

What's your opinion on an alternative hypothesis that the plotters wanted at least 1 of the shots to be linked to Oswald - which would link the murder to Cuba  and/or possibly eliminate an informer?

Edited July 14 by Bill Fite

[Keven Hofeling]

DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF THE FALSIFICATION OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM:

PART ONE -- THE ZAPRUDER FILM 0183 REGISTRATION PROOF OF ALTERATION

Graphic credit: David Healey --  https://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy4

What follows are excerpts from notable authors on the subject of the Zapruder film concerning the 0183-registration number that was assigned to and perforated directly into the camera-original Zapruder film when the film was processed at the Eastland Kodak Company in Dallas on November 22, 1963. I begin with excerpts from establishment historians and Zapruder film authenticity apologists who tow the standard government line and attempt to whitewash indications of photographic falsification either because they seek to maintain their station and privileged status in American society and the post JFKA national security state, or have themselves been beguiled by the government’s propaganda regarding the matter or a combination of both.

Additionally, I present the existing evidence regarding the processing of the film and the assignment of registration number 0183, and highlight the indications within that evidence that Eastland Kodak Company personnel did not  in fact depart from the standard and customary practice of perforating the registration number at the end of the film footage [See in particular, the 11/22/1963 Affidavits of Phil Chamberlain and Frank Sloan, below] and instead strangely and atypically placed the number at the end of side A of the film, adjacent to the family scenes. Furthermore, preliminary attention is paid to the fact that the registration numbers 0185 and 0187 are not perforated into first day SS copy no. 1 and the first day LMH copy: Of the three purported first day copies, only Secret Service copy no. 2 is imprinted with registration number 0186, and this is further compounded by the fact that the number 0186 is perforated at the beginning of the assassination sequence of side B of SS copy no. 2, rather than at the end of side B, which represents yet another departure from Kodak’s then standard and customary practice of placing the registration number at the end of the film [as attested to in the above-referenced 11/22/1962 affidavits]. I will present more information about this aspect of the problems with the purported ‘first day copies’ of the Zapruder film in Part Two of this post which will transition from the issues associated with the 0183-registration number into the numerous problems associated with the three purported first-generation copies, and their respective chains of custody.

____________

• After the original was removed from the camera, perforation identified 0183 and processed without removing the integral leader and trailer, Messrs. Chamberlain and Blair, with Mr. Zapruder present, viewed the film (with a 16mm inspection projector[2]) for processing quality.

[2] The inspection 16mm inspection projector was designed to operate at a higher than normal frame rate to evaluate for possible processing induced artifacts.

Zavada, Roland J., and J. K. Toner. Study 3, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Washington, District of Columbia, p. 2, Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence. https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n67/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n67/mode/2up

____________

A Dallas police car took Zapruder, Schwartz and Sorrels to the Kodak lab near Love Field. It was now getting close to 3:00 PM. Phil Chamberlain met them upon their arrival at the lab. Dick Blair ran off the remaining film onto the camera take-up spool. The film was taken out of the camera and given to Kathryn Kirby. She perforated it with the number 0183 and passed it on to J. Kenny Anderson for processing. Zapruder remained in the lab with his film while all this was being done.

Thompson, Josiah. (n.d.). Proof that the Zapruder Film is Authentic (par. 15). https://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/thompson-proof.html

____________

Zapruder, Sorrels, Schwartz and McCormick arrived from downtown Dallas and were met in the building lobby by Chamberlain. Following a brief discussion about the potential significance of Zapruder's film, Customer Service Representative Richard T. Blair was given the movie camera. He ran off the remainder of the second side of the unexposed film and then removed the spool from the camera. The spool included 33 feet of 16mm-wide perforated 8mm film. As a pre-processing step, Kathryn Kirby, whose responsibility was customer special handling projects, is believed to be the person who took the spool and gave the film a perforation identification number punched vertically on the film itself. The Zapruder film perforation number was [0183.] the digits made up of 9 or more, tiny, round, punched holes. Such numbering was standard customer identification practice used as a control system to match the customer order with the actual film. Normal processing would have removed four feet of thread-up leader film from each end of the spool, though in this case the extra blank film waste was not cut off during the special handling. The perforation location is also typically cut in at what, when the film is split and spliced, becomes the tail end of the film. In this case, a non-typical placement of the perforation number was cut in contiguously with the beginning of the scenes Zapruder had taken of his family.[43] 

[43] Zavada, "Study 1." Ibid., p. 5, 15, 18. The camera-original film now at the National Archives does not include the first 25 feet of film containing family scenes. The first-generation Secret Service copies of these scenes are extant, however, and do show the (0183) perforation number printed-through onto these two copies. 

Trask, Richard. B. (2005). National nightmare on six feet of film : Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (p. 106, par. 2) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/nationalnightmar0000tras/page/106/mode/2up

____________

The Kodak personnel walked the film through the processing. In the initial step Blair removed the exposed film by taking Zapruder and his camera into a darkroom, where he finished running the unexposed portion of the film through to the end of the strip, opened the camera, and removed the spool.[13]

 [13] Blair to Zavada, 1997, e-mail section, in Zavada, Analysis of Selected.; notes of telephone conversation, June 20, 1997, with Dick Blair, in Roland Zavada, Compendious Notes of Telephone Conversation with Dallas Processing Laboratory Personnel," Zavada, Analysis of Selected, study I attachments. 

Next Blair handed the film over to Kathryn Kirby of the Customer Special Handling Department. She put the film in the processing identification edge printer and on the strip end punched in the perforation identification number 0183.[14]

 [14] Notes of telephone conversation, August 10, 1997, with Tom Nulty, in Zavada, Analysis of Selected. 

Then Blair delivered the film to Bobby Davis and Bob Willie at machine number 2.[15]  

[15] Blair notes.

 Previously, in response to the telephone call from WFAA-TV studios, the machine had been cleared and certified by John "Kenny" Anderson, production foreman, and dedicated to processing only the incoming Zapruder film.[16]

 [16] Ibid.

 Before starting the development sequence, Davis loaded the machine with new leader to guard against splits and splices.[17]

 [17]. Ibid.

 Wrone, David R. (2003). The Zapruder film: reframing JFK’s assassination (p. 21, para. 3): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/zapruderfilmrefr0000wron/page/20/mode/2up?q=0183

____________

We know that, minutes after the assassination took place, Zapruder returned to his office, the film still in his camera. We also know that he subsequently took the film to the Kodak processing plant in Dallas, were he had it developed. The film had the identification number “0183” perforated onto the blank “leader” at the start of the film. 

Scalley, Chris. (2011, July). The Zapruder Film Chronology (p. 3, para. 5). Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146539#relPageId=7 Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 15, Issue 2

____________

-An affidavit executed by Abraham Zapruder concerning the developing of the original film[3] states that "the end of the processed film and carrier strip, inside the carton, were perforated by Eastman Kodak Company at the time of processing with the following identification number: 0183." Repeated examination has confirmed that this punched number is not present on the film designated as the original Zapruder film. It's absence, however, does not appear significant, because careful examination of the two Secret Service copies (onto which this unique number "0183" was photographically printed during the copying process) reveals that the photographically printed number "0183" appears on these copies contiguous with the beginning of the "home movie" (specifically, immediately prior to the "woman in blue" inside a house), not with the assassination sequence; since the "home movie" is not present on the same reel as the original film, one would therefore not expect to find this punched number contiguous with the assassination sequence on the original film. 

[3] The complete set of affidavits (all dated November 22, 1963) prepared by Abraham Zapruder regarding the developing of his original film by Kodak in Dallas, the exposure of three first-generation copies at the Jamieson Film Co. in Dallas, and the subsequent developing of those three copies back at the Dallas Kodak laboratory, are all provided here as attachment one. A letter to C. D. Jackson, publisher of Life magazine, prepared by Abraham Zapruder on November 25, 1963, explains the sequence in which the original and copies were developed, and complements the affidavits; it is provided here as attachment two. 

Horne, Douglas P. (April 9,1997). Memorandum regarding Examination of Zapruder Film Original and Selected Copies at the National Archives (p. 2, para. 1). In https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1.pdf. Assassination Records Review Board. https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1.pdf

Attachment 1 of Memorandum, affidavits supplied with Zapruder letter to Jackson.

Affadavits in this Attachment: Kodak processing and numbering of KII 8mm film as 0183, affidavit signed by Phillip Chamberlain; printing of Zapruder 8mm KII film by the JAMIESON film company, affidavit signed by Frank Sloan; processing and numbering of Zapruder Kodachrome II prints as 0185, 0186 & 0187, Kodak affidavits signed by Tom Nulty.

https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1a.pdf

____________

The Punched Number "0183," While Not Now Attached to the Extant Film, Has Been Photographically Printed on Leader Attached to All Three (3) 'First Generation' Copies That Exist Today 

It was standard practice by Kodak in 1963 to physically punch a unique customer identification number in the leader of all home movies it developed during processing. The affidavit dated November 22, 1963, signed by Production Supervisor Phil Chamberlain of the Kodak plant in Dallas, states:

 "...the end of the processed film and carrier strip, inside the carton, were [sic] perforated by Eastman Kodak Company at the time of processing with the following·identification number: 0183...".

 There is no punched identification number attached to the extant film today. However, as I noted in my ARRB memo of April 9, 1997, the punched number 0183-presumably, from the original film-was photographically printed onto the two Secret Service copies; and as Rollie Zavada noted on page 12 of his Addendum, the same number, 0183, was likewise found to have been photographically printed onto the LMH Company 'first generation' copy. (See Figure 1-2 on page 5 of Study l; Figure 3-1 on page 9 of Study 3; Figure A2 on page 12 of Zavada's Addendum; and page 138 of Livingstone.)

 While this initially implied that these copies derived from the original film, it is not proof of that, for the location in which the photographically printed number 0183 is found on the 'first generation' copies is not where that number should have been punched into the camera original film, per standard practice. (This discrepancy will be discussed in detail in the next subsection.) 

Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1250-1251).

Kodak processing and numbering of KII 8mm film as 0183, affidavit signed by Phillip Chamberlain

https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1a.pdf

____________

The following new information derives from an ARRB memorandum (dated 9 April 1997) by Douglas Horne-and also from observations made at the National Archives by Harry Livingstone and Doug Mizzer. In the chain-of- custody affidavits that were signed in Dallas after the assassination, a Kodak laboratory official identified the out-of-camera film as perforated by the number 0183 (which was placed at the time of development). Unfortunately, the exact site of this perforation on the film was not identified in the affidavit. The extant film (i.e., the purported original film currently in the National Archives) does not contain any perforated number. But since this number 0183 was photographically copied (or printed) onto Secret Service (SS) copies # 1 and 2 after the home movie segment, this seemed to imply that 0183 originally was punched only after the home movie segment. If true, then the absence of 0183 from the extant film (which shows only the motorcade) would be expected. According to Zavada, standard Kodak practice was to punch this processing number after the last image on the second side. If this practice had been followed with the Zapruder film, then a 0183 should have appeared after the motorcade side. None of the remaining numbers (the image of 0183, the punched 0186) coincide with this practice. A review of the intact original home movie side might prove enlightening; unfortunately, it remains un-located. 

Mantik, David. (2000). The Zapruder film controversy (p. 27). www.academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/69989816/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy

____________

B. Analysis of the Processing Identification Found on the Zapruder Original 8mm Film and the First Generation Copies

 Zapruder "Out-of-Camera" Original Film

 Perforated Number: According to the affidavit signed by P. M. Chamberlain, Jr. of the Kodak Dallas Processing Laboratory16, the Zapruder 8mm original film was identified during pre-processing with a number "0183" perforated vertically within the 8mm width of the film as a part of a company customer identification/control system to match the processing request (or order) to the film.

 As noted above, this perforated identification is typically located at the customer "tails end following the final usable scene so that it winds-up at the core of the return reel. Because "special handling" was involved, and the integral camera thread-up leader and trailer were not removed prior to processing, the handling of Zapruder's film differed from standard practice.

 In our examination of the motorcade scenes of the Zapruder "Out-of-Camera" Original (camera roll side two), the perforated identification of (0183) was not seen, but should have been present at the end of the remaining blank-unexposed balance of side two if standard handling practice had been followed. We do confirm the Zapruder "Out-of-Camera" Original was identified "0183" by noting the identification present as "printed through" onto both first generation Secret Service copies made by the JAMIESON film company and located adjacent to the family scenes. (See Previous Figure 1-2)

 The special handling of the film at the Dallas Laboratory did allow a non-typical placement of the perforated identification. As noted earlier, the family scenes, camera roll side one, was reported returned to the Zapruder family. Whether or not the original perforated identification section is affixed is therefore unknown to us.

 Zavada, Roland J., and J. K. Toner. Study 1, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Washington, District of Columbia, p. 19, Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence. https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n37/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n37/mode/2up

____________

Doug Mizzer and I were convinced that the number (0183) on the alleged camera original had been punched at the tail end of the "Home Movie" (at its end, the tail of Side A) and was in the wrong place, according to Zavada's statements and diagram (Figure 1-1 of his Report). It should have been at the end of the Motorcade segment. Why were we so sure? Because SS #1 & 2 had (I83) actually on the end of the Home Movie segment after the "Woman in the House" scene fades out-with no intervening splices. The next day the above letter arrived from Zavada confirming this: 

Typical practice is described on page 18 of Study 1. The roll as received for processing has side A heads out and side B tails out. The three or so feet of integral leader is removed and the film processing perforation is placed on the tails of side B, which winds onto the core of the return reel. The Zapruder original and prints received special handling-similar to customer practice [author's emphasis]. But! The typical integral leader and trailer was not removed and perforated number is on the tail of side A [i.e., the Home Movie] indicating rewinding prior to processing identification placement. (It was possible, as it was placed on a core rather than using the camera spool, for processing machine feed.[402] 

[402] Zavada letter to the author, 10 May 1999, Home, ARRB 16 (created 17 June) 1997. 

I don't grasp how "special handling" is "similar to customer practice," as he writes above, but this seems to follow a pattern of double talk on many issues. Zavada had more to say about the problem in his colossal letter of 27 June 2004, when I asked him: 

H: So if the perforated I.D. had to be cut off before copying, but they did not cut off the manufacturer's product information, how can you reconcile these conflicts? 

Z: The perforated I.D. did not have to be-and was not-removed before copying. There are no conflicts! The laboratory applied number 0I83 was retained as it occupied only about 5 mm width on one 8mm side of the film and we know it printed through onto the KIIA rolls provided the same-day copies. The manufacturer's product number is centered, about 7+mm in height and may or may not have been a handling factor. The few inches were probably not removed by Jamieson. I don't think we know. Printers handle film very gently and pose little problem even with damaged originals. The removal of perforated manufacturer's numbers becomes a significant factor in the long runs with variable tensions through processing machines-hence SOP for the processing lab is to remove them-as was done with the original and subsequently with the three prints before splicing into processing makeup rolls. 

Too many things in all of this are not according to either the rules, or practice. To make it worse, the employee, Mrs. Kathryn Kirby, who handled the number punching of the film, is deceased. Zavada wrote me: "We don't know which perforator was used, an older one at the head-end of the processing machine, or a newer one in the pre-process make-up roll room. We do know that both perforators perform the same function."[403] 

[403] Zavada letter to the author, 10 May 1999. 

Zavada is speaking of the two different styles of perforators, one more recent that resulted from faster film processing machines and required a differently placed device. The assassination sequence must have been at the beginning after the two sides were split and spliced together, because the action ("time") is going from left to right. The Home Movie section follows and has to be going from left to right (we assume) and this is followed by (0I83) which is in the identical position on SS #2 when both Home Movies are aligned (see my map). In other words, the Home Movie was never spliced on at the beginning. and somebody made a new "original" and punched (OI83] at the end of the Home Movie, which, under this scenario was always at the end of the film, contrary to Kodak's usual practice, because they knew that the interesting part was not at the beginning. 

Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (pp. 368-369): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183

____________

The Unique, Punched Identification Numbers Found on Today's 'First Generation' Copies Are in Atypical Locations That Are Inconsistent With Standard Kodak Practice 

In his report submitted to the ARRB, Rollie Zavada explained that the unique, punched, 4-digit customer identification number affixed to the film leader was normally placed in the fogged film leader at the end of the movie shot on side B of the 16 mm wide, unslit roll of double 8 mm movie film. The number was normally punched into the leader before the developing of the film. In Zapruder's case, his family scenes were shot on side A of his roll of Kodachrome II film, and the assassination film was shot on side B, where the number should have appeared at the end of the reel. After Zapruder reported to the Kodak plant, Zavada wrote on page 26 of Study 1 that: 

•    "When A. Zapruder arrived at the laboratory, Phil [Chamberlain] met him and Dick Blair assisted by running off the remaining unexposed portion of side 2 [i.e., side B] of the film in preparation for processing." 

•    "The film was given to Kathryn Kirby (now deceased), whose role was to provide service for films requiring special handling. Perforation identification (No. 0183) was most likely done at this time and then the film was given to the Production Foreman-J. Kenny Anderson for processing." [emphasis in original]

Zavada published a beautiful diagram as Figure 1-11 on page 21 of Study 1 which graphically explains exactly where the punched number should have been affixed on a typical double 8 mm film-at the end of side B. (See page 107 of Trask, and page 362 of Livingstone for a reproduction of the same diagram from Zavada's report.) This diagram is also quite useful in understanding exactly what is meant by an 'unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 mm film.' The diagram portrays a reel of unslit film as it would appear after being exposed in the camera and after having the perforated identification number punched into it, just after developing in the laboratory.

https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n41/mode/2up

Unfortunately, for those wishing to believe that the Zapruder film is an authentic, unaltered film, not only is the original punched number 0183 missing from the extant film in the National Archives, but on all three 'first generation' copies where it was photographically copied when those films were duplicated, it appears in the wrong place. Instead of appearing at the tail end of the assassination movie on side B of Zapruder's film reel, it has been photographically copied onto the three duplicates in the fogged (i.e., clear) leader at one end of the Zapruder family scenes, at the end of the home movie near the 'lady in blue, instead of at the end of the motorcade sequence. In fact, there currently is NO 'END' to the assassination film as we would normally describe such a thing, for if the reader checks the film map I drew in 1997 of the extant Zapruder film (the presumed 'original') which is appended to my April 9, 1997 ARRB film memo, you will note that the assassination sequence of images is on an unbroken section of film only 8 feet, 10 inches long -- of which the motorcade sequence is 6 feet three inches long, followed without a break by a short section of black film only 2 feet 7 inches long. At the end of this 8' 10" segment is a physical splice; this is followed by 19 feet, 3 inches of mostly black (unexposed) film, which fades to clear; another physical splice follows; and is then followed by a section of black film 6 feet, 2 inches in length; then another physical splice; then another section of black film 5 feet, 8 inches in length; then another splice; then light struck leader that is 6 feet, 9 inches in length. I will make sense out of all this below. 

A normal roll of double 8 mm film is 16 mm wide when purchased, and contains 25 feet of useable film in the center of the reel, with about 4 feet (or slightly less) of extra film (to be used for threading up the film in the operator's camera) at both ends of the 25 feet of useable film, for a total of about 33 feet of unslit, 16 mm wide film in a new roll of 'double 8' film. If a film were developed and then slit, each side of the reel (the A side and the B side) should be about 33 feet long (at a maximum) before they are spliced together to form one continuous 8 mm film. Much of the leader at the two ends of the 33 foot long reel of 16 mm film was often cut away during processing and discarded before the identification number was affixed, but this was not done with the Zapruder film at the Kodak plant in Dallas; because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, the lab technicians decided that day not to cut off any of the leader. 

The motorcade sequence of the film alone (side B should have been a maximum of 33 feet long (if no threadup leader had been cut off), and the unique punched number '0183' should have been affixed to the threadup leader near the end of the 33 long strip of film, well after the end of the motorcade sequence. The first physical splice on the extant film in the Archives appears 8 feet, 10 inches after the beginning of the 14.5 frames showing the Hesters and Marilyn Sitzman standing near the pergola in between the Book Depository and the Grassy Knoll. The second physical splice appears after a 19 feet, 3 inch section of mostly black (unexposed) film, which faded to clear (or light fogged) film at the end of the 19 feet, 3 inches. The sum of those two lengths is one inch over 28 feet in length, leading me to conclude that the two additional lengths of black film spliced on to the extant film cannot possibly have come from the camera original film, since the previous long stretch of film had faded to clear, meaning it was light fogged (as one would expect for film near the end of the roll). When one considers that the Secret Service copies reveal that the full pre-motorcade test shots on side B consisted of a total of about 177 frames (about 60 frames of a green chair and about 117 frames of the Hesters and Sitzman near the pergola), then the physical splice in the clear (fogged) film at the end of the 19 foot, 3 inch segment truly was near the extreme end of the side B footage-providing the 19 foot, 3 inch segment really is from the camera original film. Now consider this: from the standpoint of length alone -- assuming for a moment that the extant film being discussed here is indeed the original and is not an altered film -- the original punched number of 0183 must have been very near the place where the clear (fogged) film at the end of the 19 foot strip was cut and a splice affixed. This means that if the number 0183 had been cut off of the tail end of side B, and if it had later been affixed to any other portion of the film (such as the family scenes), that it must have been attached with a physical splice. Such a physical splice would have printed through photographically onto any first generation copy subsequently made after the number was spliced on. However, a careful examination of the three 'first generation copies' in existence today does not reveal any such photocopied splice in association with the printed through number 0183.[18]

[18] lt is time here for a 'mea culpa' on my part. In my original film map of Secret Service copy no.l, I incorrectly indicated that a photographic splice was present on this duplicate film in-between the number 0183 and the 'woman in blue' in the home movie. Realizing the significance of this find-that it implied crude, unprofessional tampering to attempt to make Secret Service copy 1 appear to have been copied from the original film, I went back to the Archives to double check this, and to my chagrin, there was no photographically copied splice in this location. I went back to the ARRB offices and corrected my master copy of this film map. Unfortunately for the research community, the incorrect original version of this one film map, attached to my April 9, 1997 film memo, found its way into the Zavada report, and has subsequently misled more than one researcher. I want to openly state here and now that there is no conspiracy on the part of the Archives to alter something I thought I saw in a film I examined; I simply screwed up, and made a mistake. I wish to apologize here, publicly, for any confusion caused when this error in this one film map made its way into Zavada's Appendix. Mea Culpa.

 We can therefore conclude: If (and I repeat if) the punched number 0183 mentioned in the Kodak affidavit dated November 22, 1963 was applied in the correct position at the end of side B on the day of the assassination, then the presence of a photographically copied 0183 on all three 'first generation' copies, contiguous with the Zapruder family scenes, constitutes proof that someone in another film lab (engaged in forgery of the Zapruder film) punched the number 0183 in the wrong location after a new unslit 'original' film was created. Restated, if the number 0183 was present on the 'original' film adjacent to the family scenes on Side A of the original film reel (as the 3 'first generation' copies prove that it was), then that 'original' film must have been a forgery -- a new 'original' created at another laboratory, in which those handling and developing their new creation screwed up and punched the Dallas identification number in the wrong location. All that is necessary for one to accept this additional dispositive evidence about the provenance of the Zapruder film is for one to believe that the technicians in Dallas would not have departed from normal practice and convention on the day of the assassination.

Naturally, Rollie Zavada, whose strong bias was in favor of the film's authenticity, decided that the Kodak technicians in Dallas obviously did depart (for reasons unknown) from normal practice on the day of the assassination. On page 18 of Study I, he provided this long speculative explanation:

 According to the affidavit signed by P. M. Chamberlain, Jr. of the Kodak Dallas Processing Laboratory, the Zapruder 8 mm original film was identified during pre-processing with a number '0183' perforated vertically within the 8 mm width of the film as a part of a company customer identification/control system to match the processing request (or order) to the film.

 As noted above, this perforated identification is typically located at the customer 'tails end' following the final useable scene so that it winds-up at the core of the return reel. Because 'special handling' was involved, and the integral camera thread-up leader and trailer were not removed prior to processing, the handling of Zapruder's film differed from standard practice.

In our examination of the motorcade scenes of the Zapruder 'Out-of-Camera' Original [note the overwhelming bias here and the pre-determined conclusion that the Archives film was authentic] (camera roll side two), the perforated identification of 0183 was not seen, but should have been present at the end of the remaining blank-unexposed balance of side two if standard handling practice had been followed. We do confirm the Zapruder 'Out-of­ Camera' Original [strong bias and pre-determined conclusion again] was identified '0183' by noting the identification present as 'printed through' onto both first generation Secret Service copies made by the Jamieson film company [more bias and another pre-determined conclusion] and located adjacent to the family scenes. 

The special handling of the film at the Dallas laboratory did allow a non-typical placement of the perforated identification. As noted earlier, the family scenes, camera roll side one, was reported returned to the Zapruder family. Whether or not the original perforated identification section is affixed is therefore unknown to us. [emphasis in original]

Since the person who presumably perforated the identification number on the camera original film on November 22, 1963-Kathryn Kirby-is now deceased, this issue cannot be definitively resolved. Without definitive resolution it is impossible to know whether to accept Rollie Zavada's benign explanation of "special handling" and "non-typical placement," or whether to view the absence of the number 0183 on the extant film in the Archives, and its strange, atypical placement (as printed through onto the 'first generation' copies) as evidence of tampering-the forgery of a new 'original.' 

But the perforated identification number problem will simply not go away -- for the only original  perforated customer identification number found on any of the Zapruder films extant today is the punched number 0186, found on Secret Service copy no. 2, and it is also found in a non-typical location inconsistent with normal Kodak laboratory practice. The punched number 0186 (see Figure 1-7 on page 11 of Study 1 of the Zavada report) is found on Secret Service copy no. 2 at the beginning of the motorcade sequence (preceding the Dealey Plaza test frames). While the number itself, 0186, is in agreement with one of the Kodak affidavits for a number assigned to one of the 'first day copies,' its location is not only atypical (in that it is located at the heads end of side B, instead of at the tails end of side B as was normal practice), but its location is also inconsistent with the placement of the punched number '0183' printed through onto all three 'first generation' copies of the family scenes, which was adjacent to the scenes of 'the woman in blue,' meaning that on these films it is either at the heads or tails end of side A. Are we to believe that both the true camera original film and the true 'first day copies' not only received "atypical special handling" in regard to where the identification number was punched, but that it was placed in a different location on the original than it was on the 'first day copies' by personnel in the same laboratory? Nonsense. 

While the 'perforated number problem' cannot be definitively resolved today, it does not exactly inspire confidence about the supposed authenticity of the purportedly 'original' extant film and the purported 'first generation' copies that have been so closely scrutinized. To my knowledge, Rollie Zavada made no written comments about the atypical location of the punched number 0186 on Secret Service copy no. 2. I believe he was so overjoyed to find just one of the four punched numbers listed in the affidavit trail, that he was not inclined to question where it was located on the film. If someone questioned him about it today, I am sure his answer would be: "The films all received special handling," which avoids the real question, which is: "Even though the Zapruder original and the three dupes undoubtedly received special handling, out of respect for the importance of the subject matter, why in the world would anyone at the Kodak plant in Dallas deviate from the normal procedure pertaining to where the customer identification number was placed on the film?" This is a question that Rollie Zavada dared not address, for there is no logical answer to the question.

 In my view, the missing punched number 0183 which should be attached to the tails end of the extant film, and the atypical (and inconsistent) placement of the printed through 0183 and the punched 0186 in the 'first generation' copies, together suggest careless handling by the film's forgers at the CIA's "Hawkeye Plant" at Rochester, on Sunday, November 24, 1963. It cannot be doubted that a new 'original' was created at the "Hawkeye Plant" if Homer McMahon was correct about making enlargements from a 16 mm wide, unslit "original” Zapruder film Sunday evening at NPIC, following Dino Brugioni's processing of the true original, slit 8 mm Zapruder film on Saturday evening at NPIC, the previous night. If Brugioni handled the true camera original, 8 mm slit Zapruder film on Saturday night (which is consistent with the reports at Kodak that the original film was slit and then viewed as an 8 mm film in Dallas after the Jamieson dupes were developed successfully), and if Homer McMahon handled an unslit, 16 mm wide 'original' Zapruder film the next evening, then by definition the second film processed at NPIC, on Sunday night, had to be a forgery created at Rochester.  A film cannot change overnight from a slit condition, where it is projected in an 8 mm projector, to an unslit condition, in which it is suddenly 16 mm wide again, contains opposing image strips, and is projected using an installed 16 mm projector in a briefing room. To the skeptic who says: 'Why would forgers be so careless with where they placed the punched identification numbers?' I say this: 'Why do any criminals leave clues after they commit a crime?' The obvious answer is: 'Because everyone makes mistakes,' and just as in the case of the medical coverup at Bethesda, numerous mistakes were made by the forgers at the "Hawkeye Plant," who were undoubtedly more concerned with image content issues and with edge print issues than they were with establishing the future provenance of the film through examination of punched identification numbers. (Time was very limited for the forgers.) Like all criminals, the forgers made mistakes, and like all forgeries, this one -- of the Zapruder film -- was detectable, and indeed, has now been detected. There are too many anomalies with the processing of the Zapruder film alone, for a reasonable person to subscribe to a benign explanation for all of them.

Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1272-1277).

____________

11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR P.M. CHAMBERLAIN, JR., SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1a.pdf

____________

11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF JAMIESON FILM COMPANY LABORATORY MANAGER FRANK R. SLOAN SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1a.pdf

____________

6/28/1997 NOTATION OF ROLAND ZAVADA OF HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH FORMER EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PROCESSING FOREMAN TOM NULTY WHO TOLD ZAVADA THAT IT WAS HIS RECOLLECTION THAT THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM "RECEIVED HANDLING SIMILAR TO CUSTOMER FILMS" ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION, THUS PLACING IN QUESTION ZAVADA'S THEORY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED ONTO THE END OF THE HOME MOVIE SEQUENCE ( SIDE A ) RATHER THAN THE END OF THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE ( SIDE B ), THEREBY DEPARTING FROM KODAK'S STANDARD AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, BECAUSE THE FILM WAS "SPECIALLY" PROCESSED. THUS AND THEREFORE, WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EVIDENCE ABOVE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-14.pdf

 

Edited July 14 by Keven Hofeling

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

According to Peter Dale Scott, whose work you hold in high esteem, the plotters could have chosen Phase 2 -- lone gunman --  had they wanted to. So are you saying here that the plotters had already chosen Phase 1 -- conspiracy --by the time the shooting with multiple shooters had begun?

22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Yes. My point was that the circumstances of the assassination (multiple gunmen in front of numerous spectators with cameras) indicate that whoever instigated the assassination was happy for the public to believe that the assassination was a conspiracy and not the work of a lone nut.

 

Jeremy,

You don't understand Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory. If you did understand it, you would realize that the plotters designed the assassination in a way that evidence gathered AFTER the assassination would support BOTH a Cuban/Soviet/Oswald conspiracy AND a lone-nut Oswald killing.

It wouldn't be till AFTER the assassination that the government would choose which to go with... Phase 1 (conspiracy) or Phase 2 (lone nut). (I will prove in a moment that that is what Scott had in mind.)

 

22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If anyone can argue the opposite, that the actual circumstances of the assassination implicated a lone nut rather than a conspiracy, please go ahead.

 

Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory  argues exactly that... that the plotters' goal was for the government to conclude that the killing was the  act of a lone gunman. (Which in reality is exactly what happened.)

In Scott's preferred form of the theory, he says that it was the Johnson Administration that chose the lone gunman option, and they did so because the communist option was too "explosive."

Here is Scott saying just that in a debate with Gerald Posner:

That the truth would be so explosive and the "phase 1" stories, as I call them, of communist conspiracy would be so threatening for an unnecessary war, that all kinds of people would be coerced to accept what I call the "phase 2" story—that Oswald acted alone. A story equally false, but not as likely to lead to the death, unnecessary death, of thousands of lives.

 

22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Pinning the blame on Oswald alone did not require any alteration or faking of any of the physical evidence, whether it was JFK's body or the Zapruder film or the Altgens 6 photograph or the Moorman photograph.

 

JFK was shot from the front. Lone gunman Oswald couldn't have done that. So of course that needed to be cleaned up. And that's the reason that the Z film was altered, as was the autopsy.

 

22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There is no good evidence that any of these things were altered or faked...

 

40 out of 45 witnesses agreed on a location for the blowout head wound. Statistical analysis shows that the only way for that many witnesses to agree is if indeed they got the location right.

The location they agreed upon was the back of the head. So the statistical analysis proves that location to be correct.

Therefore, since the Z film shows the blowout wound to be on the forehead rather than the back of the head, we know that that the Z film has been altered. In fact, this has conclusively been proven because of the statistical proof.

The statistical analysis also proves that at least some of autopsy photographs have been altered, as was the autopsy report.

 

22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Carrying [the assassination] out in a public place, in front of numerous spectators with cameras, suggests that it was intended to look like the work of multiple gunmen.

 

Or it suggests that 1) the only place where gunmen had access to Kennedy and had a way to escape was in a public place, and 2) multiple gunman were required to make sure the assassination was successful.

 

Edited July 14 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Roger Odisio said:

The idea the Jackson and the CIA considered which party should get to use the original Z film is a logical inference from what we know

22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

No, it isn't. As I've already explained, Roger's scenario does not follow inevitably "from what we know". It is pure speculation...

 

Jeremy,

Roger uses logical inferences in his argument and you keep saying that all he does is speculate. They are not the same thing.  He keeps telling you this but you continue treating the two as though they are the same.

When forming a theory, one connects known data points (i.e. evidence) with either speculation or inference. The difference between the two is that speculation is a guess whereas creating an inference uses reasoning to increase the likelihood of it being true.

Here is an example of the two. You see someone cringe after taking a bit of foot. You could speculate that they just had a horrible thought. Or, knowing that bad-tasting food can cause people to cringe, you could infer that the food tastes odd.

Generally speaking, inferences have greater probative value than speculation.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Therefore, since the Z film shows the blowout wound to be on the forehead rather than the back of the head, we know that that the Z film has been altered. In fact, this has conclusively been proven because of the statistical proof.

This is absolute and utter nonsense, in my opinion, and it has been previously shown to you as such. You cannot prove a film has been altered with "statistics."

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...the Z film has been altered. In fact, this has conclusively been proven because of the statistical proof.

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is absolute and utter nonsense, in my opinion, and it has been previously shown to you as such.

 

I have given the proof a number of times and nobody has been able to find a flaw in it or prove it to be wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

You cannot prove a film has been altered with "statistics."

 

How would you know that?

Truth is, you cannot know that because what you say can't be done, has been done.

 

BTW, for those who are unaware of the proof, it merely uses statistical methods and formulas to quantify the obvious, that when a large number of witnesses see that X clearly happened and that Y clearly did not happen, then X DID happen.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW, for those who are unaware of the proof, it merely uses statistical methods and formulas to quantify the obvious, that when a large number of witnesses see that X clearly happened and that Y clearly did not happen, then X DID happen.

That's not "proof," in any way, shape or form.