The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Jean Ceulemans]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Brugioni initially made two copies of his boards using what he believed was the original Z film.  Lundahl took them to brief McCone.  One copy was returned Brugioni.  Lundahl told Brugioni to put that copy in his safe and don't let anyone see it.

In 1975 Brugioni told his then supervisor that he still had a copy of his boards in his safe. According to Brugioni the supervisor told him to get rid of them.  Brugioni packed them up and sent them to the CIA director's office. That was the end of his boards, the last vestige of the original Z film.

If McCone knew about "different" films why would he let Lundahl have one back, would´t that be a huge risk?  I´d get it if he was to destroy it, but to be put in a safe for ... (don´t know). 

If it was the "official" version, it would not make sense either to not be shown to anyone.  Why?

I find that part just odd. It sounds just a little more like Brugioni was adding a part to the story, overdoing it. He had forgotten things, and perhaps wanted to stress his credibility that way, no idea.

[Roger Odisio]

47 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

If McCone knew about "different" films why would he let Lundahl have one back, would´t that be a huge risk?  I´d get it if he was to destroy it, but to be put in a safe for ... (don´t know). 

If it was the "official" version, it would not make sense either to not be shown to anyone.  Why?

I find that part just odd. It sounds just a little more like Brugioni was adding a part to the story, overdoing it. He had forgotten things, and perhaps wanted to stress his credibility that way, no idea.

Lundahl worked for McCone, so there was no problem sending a copy of Brugioni's boards back to him.  You recall Lundahl told Brugioni to lock the copy in his safe and let no one see it.

At this point both McCone and Lundahl knew that the Zfilm  and thus the boards made from it, contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with.  There was every reason not to let others see them.

At this point they hadn't tried alteration and didn't know the failure it was going to be.  They quickly found that out.

Twelve years later when a bootleg copy was shown on TV, Life's job of hiding the film from public view was over.  They gave the fake original film backed to the Zapruder family for $1.

Brugioni's boards were the last vestige of the actual original film.  It was clear they had to be destroyed because the fake original was now available and eventually ended up at NARA.  Of course that was true from the moment the film was altered.  Brugioni's boards could have been destroyed any time after that.

[Keven Hofeling]

On 7/16/2024 at 8:14 AM, Tom Gram said:

The Janney interviews were recorded, supposedly “on MP3”. I believe that comes from Horne himself. We also know the interviews were recorded because audio clips of Janney and Brugioni play during the O’Sullivan film. Horne also includes a few direct quotes in his summaries. 

The video you posted isn’t working for me. It says it was taken down. If it is a full uncut interview with Brugioni, I am interested in seeing it. The Janney interviews are more important for judging Brugioni’s credibility than anything with Horne though. 

Your claim that one must assume Brugioni was lying for there to have been only one NPIC event is absurd. By Brugioni’s own account, he couldn’t remember at least 75% of the people at NPIC that night, including “3 or 4” in the color lab. I’ll ask again: do you really think Brugioni could perfectly recall who wasn’t at NPIC that night but completely forget who actually was? This was almost 50 years later. 

If I recall, the main things Brugioni didn’t recognize about the NARA briefing boards were some notations like arrows and frame numbers. He also thought there might’ve been some additional prints. Some of those things could’ve been added later, some he could’ve just forgot. This was almost 50 years later. 

Brugioni said that during the Rockefeller Commission, he mentioned to his supervisor that he still had the briefing boards in storage. He was subsequently ordered to send the boards to the Director’s office, which he did. He was not told to destroy or “get rid of them”. 

In the Hoch memo addendum, the CIA told the Rockefeller Commission that the briefing boards had been removed from storage and were available upon request. 

That’s quite a coincidence. Is it possible that Brugioni himself was one of the sources for the Hoch memo addendum by tipping off/reminding CIA brass of additional agency involvement with the Zapruder film? I don’t think it can be ruled out. Sands’ ROCKCOM deposition would likely answer some questions, if we can ever find it.

Basically, the only requirement for there to have been a single briefing board event at NPIC is for Brugioni to have misremembered a few details 46-48 years later. That is highly likely, considering that Brugioni’s own statements suggest he misremembered major details of the event, like 75% of the total attendees. 

The key word in your definition for evidence is the word “data”. All I’ve been asking for is some actual data. Saying that the CIA had a better reason for using the Zapruder film than Life, and therefore they must have conspired with CD Jackson to obtain the original film is not data. Claiming the Secret Service agents at NPIC were really undercover CIA agents, and that the CIA maintained the cover 12 years later and lied to the Rockefeller Commission when they could have just said nothing at all is not data. Claiming the CIA had planes, and therefore they must have scooped up the original Z-film in Chicago and flown it to NPIC is not data. 

Without any supporting evidence i.e. “data”, those assumptions are pure speculation. We are not in a courtroom, but unless you can produce some actual evidence to support your theories, the Horne Z-film alteration narrative is essentially a dead end. There is a reason the Horne narrative is not widely accepted by WC critics. As demonstrated repeatedly in this thread, the evidence is very flimsy and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

I am open to evidence-based arguments for alteration. I’ve even found some solid leads. However, the evidence presented so far strongly suggests that the Hoch addendum is accurate, and that the film brought to NPIC on behalf of the SS was the first day copy the SS brought to Washington on the 23rd. 

I would be interested in finding out if the SS was ever asked about the NPIC event. I can’t imagine the ARRB wouldn’t have asked about it, but I’ve never seen anything like that. This is an example of some actual evidence that is worth looking for. 

We have corroborating reports that the Z-film was flown to New York on either the 23rd or 24th and shown to Life executives including CD Jackson. The copies made in Chicago were in black and white. I’m not sure about the so-called “dirty dupe”. I could use your same logic and say something like: “do you really think CD Jackson would settle for a black and white or “dirty” copy when making a purchasing decision on the most important film of the 20th century?”, but I’d prefer to see some evidence regarding the Z-film in New York that weekend. This is another example of some actual evidence that is worth looking for. 

Capt. Pierre Sands appears to have given a deposition to the Rockefeller Commission prior to 5/27/75 where he discussed the NPIC analysis. This is another example of some actual evidence that is definitely worth looking for. 

What would also be useful are David Wrone's audio and notes of his 2003 interview of Dino Brugioni...

The following is what Wrone published in his book about that interview.[1]

[1] 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

Washington headquarters sought help from the CIA to study the film. Just before midnight on Sunday, November 24, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John McCone, telephoned at his home Dino Brugioni, the agency's foremost photoanalyst at its renowned National Photographic Interpretation Center and ordered him to "go in" to the NPIC. Two Secret Service men were coming with a photographic emergency. Brugioni went, not knowing what to expect. At midnight two Secret Service agents appeared with a roll of 8mm film, the Zapruder film. Because the NPIC did not possess a projector to show the film, he telephoned the owner of a private film company in the area, got him out of bed, and met him at his store, where he acquired one.

With white gloves on as was typically done for "precious films," Brugioni threaded the film and then screened it, the scene of JFK's death shot at frame 313 stunning them all. The Secret Service wanted the film timed and a selection of prints made for them. With a stopwatch Brugioni timed the film and made two "enormous briefing boards," thirty-six by thirty-six inches, hinged for display, and a duplicate with twenty or more enlargements of the tiny frames into five-by-seven-inch prints made with absolutely the "world's finest" precision enlarger. The agents were especially interested in prints that showed the limousine just before it reached the sign, when it passed behind the sign, and immediately after it emerged from behind the sign. Each of the mounted prints had attached beneath it the time down to the split second.

When Brugioni was finished the agents took the film back. He then sent both copies of his boards to Director McCone who sent one to the Secret Service. One set ultimately went to the Warren Commission, which set eventually came back to the NPIC where it was stored in the locked cabinet of the vault room, until a congressional committee sometime in the 1970s asked for everything the CIA had done domestically. Then the set was sent to the then director of the CIA, disposition unknown.[69] These are unrelated to the documents associated with the Rockefeller Commission discussed elsewhere.

[69]. Interview with Dino Brugioni, May 3, 2003.
 

 

Edited Thursday at 07:07 PM by Keven Hofeling

[Roger Odisio]

On 7/16/2024 at 4:37 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger keeps making the same faulty assumption: that "the planners" wanted to alter the film because it contradicted the lone-nut story. He still doesn't seem to have grasped the point I made, namely that the circumstances of the assassination indicate that "the planners" would not have been concerned that any of the photographic evidence might contradict the lone-nut story.

If, as appears to be the case, the assassination was set up to look like a conspiracy, "the planners" must have wanted it to look like a conspiracy. Photographic evidence which supported that interpretation would have been welcomed by "the planners". They would have had no reason to alter any of it.

This is the core of Jeremy's argument for why the planners of the JFKA had no reason to alter the Z film.

 

Jeremy and I accept that multiple shooters were used to to murder JFK.  I said they did that in order to try to maximize their chances that Kennedy would not escape.  Above all else their top priority was to make sure they got Kennedy.  Their lives were at stake if they failed.

 

They planned to cover up their involvement and blame Oswald as a lone assassin.  But that discrepancy between what actually happened and blaming Oswald as the lone shooter made a series of actions necessary to cover up their involvement.  Snatching the body at Parkland so they could control the autopsy.  Murdering their designated patsy, Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer.  Organizing the WC so that it could be relied on to frame Oswald. The messages from the White House Situation to officials coming back to DC saying the murder had already been solved and Oswald did it alone.  Jim Di added another element yesterday: the guy who on the day of the murder had prepared to give out full biographies of Oswald.  And yes, altering the Z film that contradicted their lone gunman story.

 

Jeremy says that's all wrong.  The very use of multiple shooters established the planners' intent.  They had planned to blame a conspiracy, just one, of course, not involving them.  Therefore the Z film which showed the actual murder by multiple shooters was no problem.  There was no need to alter it.

 

But how to account for the fact that instead of claiming conspiracy, those running the coverup offered the Oswald lone assassin story right from the beginning?  Which took center stage in the coverup right up to the Warren Report and beyond.

 

The planners of the murder had no coverup plan, Jeremy says.  That was implemented by a second, separate group.  They were the ones who blamed Oswald for the murder.

 

Let's stop here for a minute.  It strains all credulity, all logic, to claim that professional killers like those that murdered JFK would have done so without a plan in place to save their skin and get way with it  That they would have depended on someone else to do that.

 

But we can set that aside.  It turns out it doesn't matter in thinking about Z film alteration.  As soon as some planners, whoever Jeremy imagines they were, decided to blame Oswald as the lone assassin, as we know was done, the discrepancy between that claim and what actually happened becomes real.  The Z film showing that discrepancy becomes a problem.

 

Jeremy's claim that here was no reason to be concerned or do anything about the Z film falls apart.

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

40 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

The Z film showing that discrepancy becomes a problem.

And you keep ignoring another MASSIVE problem, which is that if the Z film showed "that discrepancy," so would many other films and photos taken during the assassination. Did the plotters expect to magically be able to round up every single piece of contradictory evidence so they could alter them too? 

[Chris Davidson]

On 7/15/2024 at 11:06 PM, Chris Davidson said:

It's easier to prove alteration using the above with other methods.

Back in the 90's, we created separations with a Crosfield drum scanner.

Back in the 60's: Motive, Means and Opportunity:

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

the planners of the JFKA ... planned to cover up their involvement and blame Oswald as a lone assassin.  But that discrepancy between what actually happened and blaming Oswald as the lone shooter made a series of actions necessary to cover up their involvement.  Snatching the body at Parkland so they could control the autopsy.  Murdering their designated patsy, Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer.  Organizing the WC so that it could be relied on to frame Oswald.

Roger still doesn't seem to understand the point I was making. The "planners of the JFKA" had a plan to "cover up their involvement". That plan was not to "blame Oswald as a lone assassin" but to make the assassination look as though it was carried out on behalf of the Cuban or Soviet regimes. Why else would they have chosen someone with Oswald's personal history?

Roger can't let go of the assumption that it was the "planners of the JFKA" who decided to snatch the body, murder Oswald, and set up the Warren Commission. He still assumes that the "planners" were the same people who implemented the lone-nut idea. Let go of those assumptions, Roger!

Quote

It strains all credulity, all logic, to claim that professional killers like those that murdered JFK would have done so without a plan in place to save their skin and get way with it

My old hardback dictionary defines credulity as a "disposition to believe something on little evidence", which seems to sum up Roger's take on the matter. He probably meant 'credibility'.

Quote

some planners ... decided to blame Oswald as the lone assassin, as we know was done

No, we don't know that. If that's what Roger thinks, he should provide some evidence to support his assumptions. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

As Jonathan points out, there was a problem with altering the Zapruder film. It risked making those alterations obvious when the film was compared to other films or photographs which captured the same scenes.

The weekend of the assassination was the only time any alterations would have been feasible, due to the rapidly proliferating number of copies in circulation. But at that time only a small number of other home movies and photographs were known to the authorities (and presumably to Roger's "planners"). Perhaps Roger could explain what his "planners" were thinking when they decided to alter the Zapruder film while leaving any number of contradictory images at large.

This sums up the whole alteration nonsense. Not only is there no good evidence for any of it, but the whole scenario is hopelessly impractical.

[Jean Ceulemans]

Good point  I believe I have read somewhere there was a total of 21 people taking pictures or filming at the scene (or close)?

Try controlling those...

Should take a look in my copy of Trask to check.

[Roger Odisio]

21 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And you keep ignoring another MASSIVE problem, which is that if the Z film showed "that discrepancy," so would many other films and photos taken during the assassination. Did the plotters expect to magically be able to round up every single piece of contradictory evidence so they could alter them too? 

I haven't ignored the point, Jonathon.  I've tried to ignore the false use you make of it that you keep repeating, what, 5 or 6 times now.

Zapruder had been on TV the afternoon of the murder describing what he captured on film.  There was a bidding war the morning after the murder for rights to his film.  Life paid him $1.5 million (todays' $) for full rights at the time and the family eventually collected another $16 million from the govt to include it in the JFK Collection at NARA.  A few days after the weekend, Life was to publish stills from the film for everyone to see. 

It was quickly understood, particularly by the officials in charge of investigating the murder, that the Z film was one of the most important pieces of information about the murder.  That Saturday, McCone ordered briefing boards to clarify what the film showed and he was briefed by Lundahl early Sunday morning.  McCone then briefed Lyndon Johnson.

By that point at the latest, they all knew the Z film contradicted the Oswald lone gunman story they were already going with.  

The question was, what to do about it.  Something had to be done, and quickly.

Against all of this, in a weak attempt to imply that doing anything about the Z film was useless, you throw up the spector of many, unspecified films that also could have contradicted the Oswald story.  What films are you talking about?  What happened to them?  In the last 60 years has any of them been used to sufficiently overturn the Oswald story?  Why is that?

It's true that some other things besides alter the Z film have been done to suppress alternative information.  I presume you know the story of the Nix film, probably the next closest film to the Z film with important information.  The Darnell and Wiegman films showing the immediate aftermath of the murder have been hidden by NBC for 60 years. 

The point is the Z film was a unique, immediate, and catastrophic danger to the Oswald story that weekend the powers running the coverup were already pushing.  Doing something about that quickly became a priority.  The record shows that other sources of alternative information have been dealt adequately to let them get away with the murder so far.

Trying to alter the Z film then hiding it for 12 years when that failed was a priority decision the planners made.  It has turned to be correct so far. 

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Good point  I believe I have read somewhere there was a total of 21 people taking pictures or filming at the scene (or close)?

Try controlling those...

Should take a look in my copy of Trask to check.

Bad point, Jean.  See the answer to this question as repeatedly posted by Jonathon, that I just posted.

[Roger Odisio]

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

Roger still doesn't seem to understand the point I was making. The "planners of the JFKA" had a plan to "cover up their involvement". That plan was not to "blame Oswald as a lone assassin" but to make the assassination look as though it was carried out on behalf of the Cuban or Soviet regimes. Why else would they have chosen someone with Oswald's personal history?

Roger can't let go of the assumption that it was the "planners of the JFKA" who decided to snatch the body, murder Oswald, and set up the Warren Commission. He still assumes that the "planners" were the same people who implemented the lone-nut idea. Let go of those assumptions, Roger!

My old hardback dictionary defines credulity as a "disposition to believe something on little evidence", which seems to sum up Roger's take on the matter. He probably meant 'credibility'.

No, we don't know that. If that's what Roger thinks, he should provide some evidence to support his assumptions. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

As Jonathan points out, there was a problem with altering the Zapruder film. It risked making those alterations obvious when the film was compared to other films or photographs which captured the same scenes.

The weekend of the assassination was the only time any alterations would have been feasible, due to the rapidly proliferating number of copies in circulation. But at that time only a small number of other home movies and photographs were known to the authorities (and presumably to Roger's "planners"). Perhaps Roger could explain what his "planners" were thinking when they decided to alter the Zapruder film while leaving any number of contradictory images at large.

This sums up the whole alteration nonsense. Not only is there no good evidence for any of it, but the whole scenario is hopelessly impractical.

Your regurgitation of this already discredited nonsense has me wondering why I'm still responding to you.

Most sentient human beings in 1963 understood that a nuclear war with the Soviets was unwinnable.  That the real deterrent to such a war was that it would lead to Mutually Assured Destruction of the globe.  That idea was replacing defense systems as the real deterrent.  

Among those rational beings was Lyndon Johnson, the president who would have to implement the strategy of blaming Cuba/the SU.  He wanted no part of risking such a war at the beginning of his administration.

The reasons you have given for asserting that the planners wanted to use the the murder to blame the SU, are ludicrous.  1.  that's why they picked Oswald the commie as the patsy, and 2) you know that's what they intended to do because they used multiple shooters! (I'm still chuckling  about that one as I type it)

In short the idea to use the murder to go after Cuba/SU was never a serious consideration of any  the top planners (evil, but rational as they were).  The total absence of that claim from officials once they began blaming Oswald right after the murder should help you understand that.

That leads me back to the central point of my last note.  Once officials starting blaming Oswald as the lone nut assassin, whenever you think that was, that means the Z film which contradicts their story, became a central and immediate problem to be dealt with. 

Your oft repeated claim that they never had a reason to do anything with the Z film is false.

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Roger, for what its worth, I agree with your posts on this thread.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jean Ceulemans writes:

Quote

I believe I have read somewhere there was a total of 21 people taking pictures or filming at the scene (or close)?

Try controlling those... 

The figure of 21 probably refers to the photographers and home movie makers whose names we know and whose images we know about. There was at least one other whose name we don't know: the woman in the headscarf. There may well be photographs taken in Dealey Plaza that have been sitting in a box in someone's attic for the last 60 years.

When the Secret Service took its copy of the Zapruder film to the NPIC on the Saturday, many of these other photographers were unknown to anyone in authority. Roger doesn't seem to grasp the point Jonathan made: that altering one home movie in isolation would have been a very stupid thing to do. Roger writes:

Quote

you [Jonathan] throw up the spector [sic] of many, unspecified films that also could have contradicted the Oswald story.

The point isn't that these other photographs and films "could have contradicted the Oswald story", but that they could have contradicted an altered Zapruder film, which would have blown the entire film-altering scheme wide open.

Even if we take seriously the speculation that anyone in authority even considered altering the Zapruder film, it is inconceivable that they would have done so while leaving the rest of the photographic evidence untouched. Unless they were extremely stupid, it would have been blindingly obvious to them that they needed to round up all of the photographs and home movies and make sure that none of these images contained scenes which conflicted with whatever alterations they planned to make.

As Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain makes clear, officialdom showed next to no interest in the photographic record in general. They took an interest in some, but not all, of the photographs and films that were presented to them. They dismissed some important evidence, such as the films of Charles Bronson and Robert Hughes. There was no official effort to assemble all or even most of the photographic evidence at any time, let alone during the weekend of the assassination.

Not only is there no good evidence that the original Zapruder film was examined at NPIC on the Saturday, and no evidence at all that it was altered at Hawkeye Works on the Sunday, but there is no reason to assume that anyone would have been so stupid as to alter one film while leaving all the others at large.

If anyone wanted to conceal the evidence contained within the Zapruder film, they had two options: destroy it or hide it away. They chose the latter option.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

In short the idea to use the murder to go after Cuba/SU was never a serious consideration of any  the top planners (evil, but rational as they were).  The total absence of that claim from officials once they began blaming Oswald right after the murder should help you understand that.

Yet again, Roger is assuming that the people who "began blaming Oswald" were the same people who instigated the assassination. Let go of those assumptions, Roger!

There is an alternative explanation: one set of people made the assassination look like the work of a communist conspiracy, which prompted a second set of people, the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, to defuse popular discontent by blaming it on a lone nut.

Whoever instigated the assassination made a (presumably) rational decision to connect the assassination to Oswald. But Oswald was one of thousands of people who worked along the route of the motorcade, any number of whom might have been candidates for the role of patsy. Why was Oswald chosen?

If the planners had intended the blame to fall on a lone nut, Oswald was a really poor choice. Not only had he been a mediocre shot a few years earlier in the Marines, but he had some very obvious recent links to both the Cuban and Soviet regimes. The planners must have anticipated that Oswald's apparent links to those regimes would come to light before too long, which is exactly what happened.

It isn't unreasonable to conclude that Oswald was chosen precisely because his personal history would suggest that he was working on behalf of the Cuban or Soviet regimes. That would apply whatever his actual involvement was supposed to have been, whether it involved firing his rifle himself or merely supplying it to someone else.

Roger claims that the intention before the assassination was to pin the blame on a lone nut, i.e. someone who had no affiliations to any group. Why, then, didn't the planners choose someone who actually had no affiliations to any group? Someone like Buell Wesley Frazier would have fitted the bill, wouldn't he? He had no strong political affiliations (as far as I'm aware, at least); he owned a rifle; he worked at a building along the route; he had access to the sixth floor of that building; and he was just as disposable as Oswald.

In Roger's opinion, why was Oswald, with all his ideological baggage, specifically chosen as the patsy before the assassination?

Quote

Once officials starting blaming Oswald as the lone nut assassin, whenever you think that was, that means the Z film which contradicts their story, became a central and immediate problem to be dealt with. 

As I've explained several times, the Zapruder film was dealt with! It was hidden from public view for more than a decade. Doing so succeeded in eliminating the immediate problem. It prevented the public at large from becoming aware of the ways in which the film contradicted the lone-nut interpretation.

There's no need to complicate matters by adding an extra, unnecessary layer to the story. Rather than speculate that the film was altered and then hidden, why not cut out the middle man? The unaltered film was just hidden! That was the only thing that needed to happen, in order to deal with the problem of the film's incriminating contents.

Quote

Your oft repeated claim that they never had a reason to do anything with the Z film is false.

I've never claimed that "they never had a reason to do anything" with the film. Something was done with the film: it was kept largely out of public view for 12 years. There was no reason to alter it when all that was needed was to hide it, which is what happened.

[Paul Rigby]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There was no reason to alter it when all that was needed was to hide it, which is what happened.

Here is CBS, the CIA's favourite TV and radio network, "hiding" the Zapruder film on Monday, 25 November:

1)      Dan Rather’s 1^st televised description of the Zapruder film:

 1.       We have just returned from seeing a complete motion picture of the moments preceding, and the moments of, President Kennedy’s assassination and the shooting of Texas Governor John Connally.

2.       Here is what the motion picture shows.

3.       The automobile, the black Lincoln convertible, with the top down - carrying, in the front seat, two secret service agents; in the middle, or jump seat, the Governor and Mrs. Connally; and, in the rear seat, President and Mrs. Kennedy – made a turn off of Houston Street, on to Elm Street.

4.       This was a left turn and was made right in front of the building from which the assassin’s bullet was fired.

5.       After making the turn, and going about 35 yards from the corner of the building – six stories up in which the assassin had a window open – and keep in mind here that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are seated on, both on the same side of the car, on the side facing the building: Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally are on the side of the car away from the assassin.

6.       About 35 yards from the base of the building, President Kennedy, in the film, put his hand up to the right side of his face, the side facing the assassin.

7.       He seemingly wanted to brush back his hair, or perhaps rub his eyebrow.

8.       Mrs. Kennedy at this moment was looking away, or looking straight ahead.

9.       She was not looking at her husband.

10.   At that moment, when the President had his right hand up to this side of his face (gestures), he lurched just a bit forward.

11.   It was obvious that the shot had hit him.

12.   Mrs. Kennedy was not looking at him, nor did she appear to know at that instant that her husband had been hit.

13.   Governor Connally, in the seat immediately in front of the President, apparently either heard the shot or sensed that something was wrong because, Governor Connally, with his coat open, his button was undone, turned in this manner (turns back to his right with right arm extended), his hand outstretched, back toward the President; and the Governor had a look on his face that would indicate he perhaps was saying “What’s wrong?” or “What happened?” or “Can I help?” or something.

14.   But as Governor Connally was turned this way, his white shirt front exposed well to the view of the assassin, the Governor was obviously hit by a bullet, and he fell over to the side.

15.   Governor Connally’s wife, immediately, seemingly instantaneously, placed herself over her husband in a protective position, it appeared; and as Governor Connally fell back, President Kennedy was still leaned over.

16.   At that moment another bullet obviously hit the head of the President.

17.   The President’s head went forward, violently, in this manner (gestures).

18.   Mrs. Kennedy, at that instant, seemed to be looking right-square at her husband.

19.   She stood up.

20.   The President slumped over to the side and, I believe, brushed against Mrs. Kennedy’s dress.

21.   Mrs. Kennedy immediately turned and flung herself on the trunk of the automobile, face-down on the trunk, almost on all-fours.

22.   The First Lady appeared to be either frantically trying to get the secret service man who was riding on the bumper of the car - the single secret service man riding on that bumper - to come into the car or to tell him what had happened; or perhaps, from the picture, it appeared she might have been trying to get out of the car some way.

23.   The car never stopped.

24.   The secret service man in the front seat had a telephone in his hand.

25.   The car…its acceleration increased rapidly and it disappeared under an underpass.

26.   Three shots - the first one hitting President Kennedy, the second one hitting Governor Connally, the third one hitting the President – consume, possibly, five seconds.

27.   Not much more than that, if any.

28.   That is the scene shown in about twenty seconds of film that the FBI has in its possession.

29.   The film was taken by an amateur photographer who was in a very advantageous position, and who had his camera trained on the President’s car from the time it made the turn in front of the assassin until it disappeared on its way to the hospital.

30.   This is Dan Rather in Dallas.

 2)      Dan Rather’s 2^nd televised description of the Zapruder film:

 1.       We have just returned from seeing a complete motion picture of the moments immediately preceding, and the moments of, President Kennedy’s assassination.

2.       The motion picture shows the limousine carrying, in the front seat, two secret service men; in the middle, or jump seat, Governor and Mrs. Connally; and, in the rear seat, President and Mrs. Kennedy; a single secret service man standing on the back bumper; the top of the black Lincoln convertible down.

3.       The car made a turn, a left turn, off of Houston Street, on to Elm Street, on the fringe of Dallas’ down-town area; that turn made directly below the sixth floor window from which the assassin’s bullets came.

4.       After the left turn was completed, the automobile, with only one car in front of it - a secret service car immediately in front – the President’s car proceeded about 35 yards from the base of the building in which the assassin was.

5.       President Kennedy and Governor Connally were seated on the same side of the open car, the side facing the building: Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally on the side of the car opposite the assassin.

6.       President Kennedy is clearly shown to put his right hand up to the side of his face as if to either brush back his hair, or perhaps rub his eyebrow.

7.       Mrs. Kennedy at that instant is looking away, and is not looking at the President.

8.       At almost that instant, when the President has his hand up to this side of his face (gestures), he lurches forward something in this manner (gestures): The first shot had hit him.

9.       Mrs. Kennedy appeared not to notice.

10.   Governor Connally, in the seat right in front of the President – by the way, the Governor had his suit coat open, his suit was not buttoned – perhaps either heard the shot or somehow he knew something was wrong because the picture shows just after that first shot hit the President, the Governor turned in something this manner, with his right arm stretched back toward the President, as if to say “What’s wrong?” or “What happened?” or say something.

11.   It exposed the entire white front shirt of the Governor to the full view of the assassin’s window; and as the Governor was in this position, and President Kennedy behind him was slumped slightly over, a shot clearly hit the front of Governor Connally; and the Governor fell back over towards his wife.

12.   Mrs. Connally immediately put herself over her husband in a protective position, and as she did so, in the back seat, this time with Mrs. Kennedy’s eyes apparently right on her husband, the second shot – the third shot in all – the second shot hit the President’s head.

13.   His head went forward, in a violent motion, pushing it down like this (leans forward, lowering his head as he does so).

14.   Mrs. Kennedy was on her feet immediately.

15.   The President fell over in this direction (leans to his left).

16.   It appeared his head probably brushed or hit against Mrs. Kennedy’s legs.

17.   The First Lady almost immediately tried to crawl on – did crawl on - to the trunk of the car, face-down, her whole body almost was on that trunk, in something of an all-fours position.

18.   She appeared to be either trying to desperately get the attention of the secret service man on the back bumper, or perhaps she was stretching out toward him to grab him to try get him in.

19.   Perhaps even trying to get herself out of the car.

20.   The car was moving all the time, the car never stopped.

21.   The secret service man on the back bumper leaned way over and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy’s shoulders – she appeared to be in some danger of falling or rolling off that trunk lid.

22.   He pushed her back into the back seat of the car.

23.   In the front seat, a secret service man with a phone in his hand.

24.   The car speeded up and sped away. It never stopped, the car never paused.

25.   That’s what the film of the assassination showed.

26.   The film was taken by an amateur photographer who had placed himself in an advantageous position: eight millimeter color film.

27.   This is Dan Rather in Dallas.

3)      Dan Rather’s 3^rd televised description of the Zapruder film

(Ken Rheberg: Dan Rather described the Zapruder film THREE separate times on CBS-TV Monday 11/25/63. The final report was televised at approximately 8:26PM EST

Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12216&p=262821

Post #249, 17 November 2012, within the thread: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963?)

Transcript of 3^rd description on line: http://www.etcfilmunit.com/Cronkite.html

I-Accuse.com

1.       The films we saw were taken by an amateur photographer, who had a particularly good vantage point, just past the building from which the fatal shot was fired.

2.       The films show President Kennedy's open, black limousine, making a left turn, off Houston Street on to Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas, a left turn made just below the window in which the assassin was waiting.

3.       About 35 yards past the very base of the building, just below the window, President Kennedy could be seen to, to put his right hand up to the side of his head to, either brush back his hair or perhaps rub his eyebrow.

4.       President Kennedy was sitting on the same side of the car as the building from which the shot came.

5.       Mrs. Kennedy was by his side.

6.       In the jump seat in front of him, Mrs. Connally, and Governor Connally, Governor Connally on the same side of the car as the president.

7.       And in the front seat, two Secret Service men.

8.       Just as the president put that right hand up to the side of his head, he, you could see him, lurch forward.

9.       The first shot had hit him.

10.   Mrs. Kennedy was looking in another direction, and apparently didn't see, or sense that first shot, or didn't hear it.

11.   But Governor Connally, in the seat in front, appeared to have heard it, or at least sensed that something was wrong.

12.   The Governor's coat was open.

13.   He, he reached back in this fashion, exposing his white shirt front to the assassin’s window, reached back as if to, to offer aid or ask the president something.

14.   At that moment, a shot clearly hit the governor, in the front, and he fell back in his seat.

15.   Mrs. Connally immediately threw herself over him in a protective position.

16.   In the next instant, with this time Mrs. Kennedy apparently looking on, a second shot, the third total shot, hit the president's head.

17.   He, his head can be seen to move violently forward.

18.   And, Mrs. Kennedy stood up immediately; the president leaned over her way.

19.   It appeared that he might have brushed her legs.

20.   Mrs. Kennedy then, literally, went on the top of the trunk, of the Lincoln car, put practically her whole body on the trunk.

21.   It, it appeared she might have been on all fours, there, reaching out for the Secret Service man, the lone Secret Service man who was riding on the bumper of the car, the back bumper on Mrs. Kennedy's side.

22.   The Secret Service man leaned forward and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy's shoulder to push her back into the car.

23.   She was in some danger, it appeared, of rolling off or falling off.

24.   And when we described this before, there was some question about what we meant by Mrs. Kennedy being on the trunk of the car.

25.   Only she knows, but it appeared that she was trying desperately to, to get the Secret Service man's attention or perhaps to help pull him into the car.

26.   The car never stopped, it never paused.

27.   In the front seat, a Secret Service man was, was on the telephone.

28.   The car picked up speed, and disappeared beneath an underpass.

29.   This is Dan Rather in Dallas.

CBS planned to show the Zapruder film on Monday, 25 November, not "hide" it.