The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Paul Bacon writes:

Quote

I'd remember it--seeing a huge white cloud shoot up out of the top of Kennedy's head!?  Four feet in the air!?  None of which we see in the extant film.

Thanks for replying, Paul.

Trivial details such as the colour and height of the debris can be explained by the uncontroversial variability of human memory. The fundamental claim is that the debris didn't "shoot up out of the top of Kennedy's head" as we see in the Zapruder film, but out of the back of his head, and that the vertical debris we see in the film is the product of alteration.

But if Brugioni actually saw vertical debris and did not see horizontal debris, that vertical debris cannot have been added later. That aspect of the film must be authentic.

Alternatively, if Brugioni's memory was faulty regarding the direction of the debris, how can we rule out the possibility that his other recollections were faulty too?

Quote

That was done at Hawkeye Works

Almost certainly nothing was done at Hawkeye Works on the weekend of the assassination. If you go back and read some of Tom Gram's posts, you'll see that the Hawkeye Works notion is the result of hearsay: someone claimed, decades after the event, that he heard someone else claim that he had come from Hawkeye Works. It's very flimsy evidence indeed.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Kevin Balch writes:

Quote

Of the three copies made at the Jameson plant in Dallas on Friday afternoon/evening, weren't they made at 3 different contrasts, one to reflect the original and the other two with more and less contrast?

The three copies were made at three exposure settings: one at the presumed correct exposure, one at a slightly higher exposure setting (thus producing a slightly lighter image), and one at a slightly lower setting (producing a slightly darker image). The lightest copy would have lost some detail in its lighter areas compared to the other two copies, and the darker copy would have lost some detail in its darker areas compared to the other two copies. All three would have lost some detail compared to the original.

Quote

Is it possible that Brugioni did not see the camera original but one of the copies with a different contrast setting that may have altered the color and size of the cloud as well as the shadow/"black hole"?

It's almost certain that Brugioni did not see the camera original. The film he saw can only realistically have been one of the Secret Service's two copies, because:

• The film he saw was brought to, and taken away from, the NPIC by the Secret Service.
• The only version of the film in Washington at the time was the copy which the Secret Service in Dallas had sent to the Secret Service in Washington overnight on the Friday.
• The original film was in Chicago.

We know that one of the Secret Service's two copies was noticeably lighter than the original, and that the other was noticeably darker than the original. For details, see pages 20-23 of the Zavada report:

https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport

It isn't clear, as far as I can tell, which of these two copies was the one sent to Washington on the Friday night and viewed by Brugioni on the Saturday. But whichever one it was, it would have lacked details compared to the original. It's quite conceivable that details, such as a rapidly dissipating cloud of brain matter and the shadow area at the back of JFK's head, would have looked different in the copy Brugioni worked with than in the original.

[Sean Coleman]

On 8/7/2024 at 10:04 PM, Jean Ceulemans said:

A few remarks, and perhaps something to keep in mind.
The original 8mm negative frames are each less than 5.00 mm x 3.5 mm (just imagine how small JKF’s head is on the negative, or any other of the details).
I have handled a bunch of those film in order to digitize them (local history conservation project).
First, please forget about getting a really sharp still image from those… won’t happen.
Second, these films are made to be projected on a screen at a pretty fast speed (your brains are running fast as well, filling in the blanks).  Like it or not, but it’s partially an optical illusion. 
BUT to show the best result, the display on the screen should be approx. (and about maximum)  8.5 by 11 inches only !  Yes, you can go bigger, but you’ll loose a lot of details. Forget what you see in certain films...
The size of the prints made for the boards are approx. the size of the best size display on a screen.  A little bigger or smaller is possible.
Now imagine changing the contrast on such a small item, touch it a little and results change drastically, often you’ll see it’s useless.  If, in addition, you’re going to display it somewhat larger, you’ll be looking at a different low quality B-film… 
Just wanted to point out how small those things are, and how they are supposed to be displayed to get the best optical result.  
 

Agreed Jean, I think logic prevails here. Although alteration techniques were available in the early 60’s, the timescale & minute details of alteration needed cast a looooong shadow on this theory.

 

 

Btw, fwiw, it took 11.5 months to complete the penguin dance scene in Mary Poppins, probably working to a deadline with the best available equipment. 

Ps. “..though we adore men individually, we agree that as a group they are rather stupid..” One of Mary’s thoughtful quotes from the film. Wish my cleaner was that wise.

 

Edited yesterday at 09:50 AM by Sean Coleman

[Kevin Balch]

4 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Agreed Jean, I think logic prevails here. Although alteration techniques were available in the early 60’s, the timescale & minute details of alteration needed cast a looooong shadow on this theory.

Btw, fwiw, it took 11.5 months to complete the penguin dance scene in Mary Poppins, probably working to a deadline with the best available equipment. 

Ps. “..though we adore men individually, we agree that as a group they are rather stupid..” One of Mary’s thoughtful quotes from the film. Wish my cleaner was that wise.

 

An optical printer is not among the equipment listed as being available at the Eastman Kodak Bridgehead facility (what is referred to as Hawkeyeworks) in the early 1960s. They were just getting into evaluating color photography for reconnaissance applications in 1963. Though they had the capability of making briefing boards, they certainly didn’t have animation artists on staff.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There was NO "stereographic testing" performed by Mantik.

 

Here is a video of Mantik disagreeing with Pat.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Here is a video of Mantik disagreeing with Pat.

 

 

That's so sad. 

[Kevin Balch]

Doesn’t Mantik believe that the limo came to a complete stop?

[Jean Ceulemans]

He just said there were 2 pictures, right?

I guess they were identical? 

We´ll see 😇

 

[Pat Speer]

30 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Doesn’t Mantik believe that the limo came to a complete stop?

Yes. People believe Mantik because he has those letters after his name and they are desperate to have an "expert" tell them what they want to believe. But he has embraced or at least failed to distance himself from some of the loopiest stuff imaginable, and is erratic as heck. 

Some time ago I realized that he thought the large triangular fragment was frontal bone...which meant that in his view there were two holes on the head (one on the occipital bone and one on the frontal bone). And I pointed this out to Sandy. Well, Sandy couldn't believe Mantik thought there was a hole on the top of the head of any kind and contacted him, and to Sandy's credit, reported back what Mantik told him. Mantik told Sandy I was incorrect because he actually believed there was ONE giant hole on the head from the back of the head between the ears all the way to the forehead...and that the front part of this wound went unobserved at Parkland. (I subsequently realized that Mantik had publicly proclaimed as much in an online presentation.)

Well, this is totally at odds with Horne's claim the shots left but one much smaller hole in the middle of the back of the head. To be clear, here is what Horne has claimed the wound looked like at Parkland. 

And here is what Mantik says the wound looked like upon arrival at Bethesda. 

Now, this totally undermines Horne's claim there was no hole on the top of the head prior to Humes creating such a wound.

So WHY won't Mantik admit he disagrees with Horne's claim Humes created the wound on the top of the head? And why does he continue to promote Horne's work and hall him as the greatest researcher or whatever? 

The same reason he won't distance himself from Fetzer, IMO. Mantik enjoys being at the center of a cadre of people making bizarre claims. And as it turns out there's a method to their madness. The forward to his new book--his supposedly final book--includes claims the deep state that killed JFK has taken over the country in the form of Joe Biden and has also taken over the Catholic Church. (The former Archbishop who wrote this forward has since been ex-communicated.) 

But my point stands. If Mantik doesn't believe the stuff pushed by Fetzer, Horne, and now Vigano, why won't he say as much? 

I think we can suspect he simply likes saying crazy stuff and being around people saying crazy stuff.

Edited August 8 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

26 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

He just said there were 2 pictures, right?

I guess they were identical? 

We´ll see 😇

 

I posted a GIF of the two photos he was talking about above. As you can see the central part of the photos he claims to have been an identical matte is no such thing, as there are subtle differences in the relationship of individual strands of hair and the scalp etc. 

Here it is again. 

 

Edited August 8 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

51 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Doesn’t Mantik believe that the limo came to a complete stop?

Dr. Mantik has recited the testimony of the many witnesses who reported that the limo came to a stop.

In his opinion, that testimony is compelling.

____________

Chapter Ten of 'HONEST ANSWERS ABOUT THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY' by Vince Palamara (Courtesy of Vince Palamara)

"Master List of Witnesses Who Stated That the Limousine Slowed or Stopped – A Deadly Delay on Elm Street"

The following is a complete listing, the largest one ever compiled, of every single witness I could find – over 70 in all – who stated that the limousine either slowed down or stopped. This deadly delay on Elm Street was Secret Service agent Bill Greer’s fault, pure and simple; he was the limousine driver. As even lone-nut authors agree, Greer’s inept driving of the limo during the shooting allowed the assassination to be a tragic success....

LINK TO PDF OF CHAPTER TEN: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnVVyr2Qcdy-gccV7bF_4Je5GuEYaA?e=E6b8Ay

LINK TO POST OF CHAPTER TEN: https://www.facebook.com/groups/political assassinations researchhgroup/posts/5063457320376963/

Vince Palamara's limo slowed compilation: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0JvEPa3BHOE&t=14s

____________

ALL FOUR OF THE DALLAS POLICE MOTORCYCLISTS FLANKING THE REAR OF JFK'S LIMOUSINE REPORTED THAT THE LIMO CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP IN DEALEY PLAZA:

 "... The vagaries of eyewitness testimony are well known, and it might be argued that these police witnesses (as well as the other witnesses who also reported the limousine deceleration) were simply mistaken about what they observed. This seems extremely unlikely, however, because all four of the Dallas police motorcyclists flanking the rear of JFK’s limousine also reported the limousine stopped or slowed...."  
 
Donald E. Wilkes, Jr.
Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Georgia School of Law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"...I will now point to some of the evidence that the limousine did indeed stop or slow down. I pass over similar reports made by civilian spectators and news media people, and limit myself to reports made by police officers in or near Dealey Plaza. 

Using binoculars, Harry D. Holmes, a federal postal inspector, watched the presidential limousine as it turned from Houston Street and then proceeded down Elm Street from his fifth floor office window in a building two blocks from Dealey Plaza. He testified to the Warren Commission that he heard what sounded like three firecrackers. He saw what he thought was dust coming out of JFK’s head. Then: “The car almost came to a stop.” 

Earle V. Brown was a Dallas policeman standing on the overpass of the Stemmons Freeway, about 100 yards from Elm Street. Here is an excerpt from his Warren Commission testimony: 

MR. BROWN: “[T]he first I noticed the car was when it stopped.” 

MR. BALL (Warren Commission counsel): “Where?” 

MR. BROWN: After it made the turn [from Houston Street to Elm Street] and when the shots were fired, it stopped.” 

MR. BALL: “Did it come to a complete stop?” 

MR. BROWN: “That I couldn’t swear to.” 

MR. BALL: “It appeared to be slowed down some?” 

MR. BROWN: “Yes; slowed down.” 

MR. BALL: “Did you hear the shots?” 

MR. BROWN: “Yes, sir.” 

J.W. Foster was a Dallas policeman stationed on the railroad overpass at the corner of Elm, Main and Commerce Streets. In a statement to the FBI made on Mar. 26, 1964, he said: “Immediately after President Kennedy was struck with a second bullet, the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb …” 

D.V. Harkness was a Dallas policeman standing in Dealey Plaza south of Elm Street. Here is part of his Warren Commission testimony: 

MR. BELIN (Warren Commission counsel): “What did you do [when you heard the gunshots]?” 

MR. HARKNESS: “When I saw the first shot and the President’s car slow down to almost a stop—“ MR. BELIN: “When you saw the first shot. What do you mean by that?” 

MR. HARKNESS: “When I heard the first shot and saw the President’s car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling off the car, I went back to the intersection to get my motorcycle.” 

The vagaries of eyewitness testimony are well known, and it might be argued that these police witnesses (as well as the other witnesses who also reported the limousine deceleration) were simply mistaken about what they observed. This seems extremely unlikely, however, because all four of the Dallas police motorcyclists flanking the rear of JFK’s limousine also reported the limousine stopped or slowed. 

Officer Bobby Hargis was the inside rider at the left rear of the limousine. In his testimony to the Warren Commission he said: “[W]hen President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down… I felt blood hit me in the face, and the Presidential car stopped immediately after that and stayed stopped for about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed.” According to an undated, unpublished transcript of an interview he had with the Dallas Times-Herald, Hargis told the newspaper: “I felt blood hit me in the face, and the presidential car stopped immediately after that and stayed stopped about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed.” (In a video of a 1995 interview, now on YouTube, you can watch Hargis tell the interviewer: “That guy [the Secret Service agent driving JFK’s limousine] slowed down… [He] slowed down almost to a stop.”) Hargis died in 2014. 

Officer B.J. Martin was the outside rider at the left rear of the limousine. He told the Warren Commission: “It [the motorcade] slowed down just before we made the turn on Elm Street [from Houston Street].” Officer Martin was later interviewed by researchers Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams and told them, as reported in their unpublished 1974 manuscript Murder from Within, that he observed the limousine stop for “just a moment.” 

Officer James M. Chaney was the inside rider at the right rear of the limousine. He did not testify before the Warren Commission, but two days after the assassination he was quoted in the Houston Chronicle as stating that the limousine stopped immediately after the first shot. Furthermore, Dallas police officer Marrion L. Baker, a Dallas police motorcyclist who was on Houston Street when the first shot was fired, testified to the Warren Commission that shortly after the assassination he had talked with officer Chaney and that Chaney told him that “from the time the shot rang out, the [limousine] stopped completely, pulled to the left, and stopped.” Officer Baker added: “Several officers said it stopped completely.” When then asked whether he had heard from other Dallas police officers that the limousine had stopped, he testified: “Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland [Hospital].” 

Officer Douglas Jackson was the outside rider at the right rear of the limousine. He did not testify before the Warren Commission, but he did tell researchers Newcomb and Adams that “the [limousine] just all but stopped… just a moment.”..." 

Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. is a Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Georgia School of Law, where he taught for 40 years. He has published nearly 50 articles in Flagpole magazine on the JFK assassination.  

 Wilkes, Donald E. Jr., "Grassy Knoll Shots? Limousine Slowdown?" (2017). Popular Media. 279. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_pm/279   

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=fac_pm

DPD Supervising Motorcycle Patrolman Stavis Ellis re Skull Fragment Put Back in Limo During Stop

 

DPD Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis's Accounts of Stop of Presidential Limo During Assassination

 

DPD Motorcycle Patrolman Doug Jackson's Written and Audio Accounts of Limo Stop During Assassination

 

DPD Motorcycle Patrolman Harry Freeman Stopped in Front of Presidential Limo During Assassination

 

DPD Motorcycle Patrolman James Courson Says JFK Limo Stopped When Interviewed for 50th Anniversary

 

DPD Motorcycle Patrolman B.J. Martin on Presidential Limo Stopping During Assassination

 

Researcher Larry Rivera Explains Skull Fragment Being Placed Back in Limo During Assassination

____________

Also quite compelling is the fact that the four Dealey Plaza witnesses closest to the presidential limo at the time of the headshot -- Bill Newman, Charles Brehm, Mary Moorman and Jean Hill -- in their earliest descriptions of the assassination, also attested that the limo came to a complete stop (or SIGNIFICANTLY slowed): 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM 'AN INTERVIEW WITH ASSASSINATION EYE WITNESS BILL NEWMAN',  THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO, VOLUME 2, MARCH 1992:

 " and the car momentarily stopped" 

And then I can remember that when we were on the ground - I'd like to bring this up if I may - looking back over my shoulder I can remember, I believe it was the passenger in the front seat - there were two men in the front seat - had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily stopped. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car stopping. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded and accelerated on." 

LAW: "But you don't really see that in the Zapruder film." 

NEWMAN: "No, you don't. But anyway, that's the impression I'm left with." 

LAW: "Several people said that the car stopped." 

NEWMAN: "Yes, and then they shot on. You know, through the overpass, the railroad overpass, and that's the last we saw of them."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/N Disk/Newman William & Gayle/Item 01.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE 11/25/1963 FBI REPORT OF INTERVIEW OF CHARLES F. BREHM:

 "...BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only Seemed to move some 10 or 12 feet . It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain . After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight...."

 https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1425.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE 11/22/1963 FBI REPORT OF INTERVIEW OF MARY MOORMAN:

"...[Mary Moorman] recalls that the President's automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry..." 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1426.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE 11/22/1963 DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT REPORT OF INTERVIEW OF JEAN HILL:

"Mary Moorman started to take a picture. We were looking at the president and Jackie in the back seat... Just as the president looked up two shots rang out and I saw the president grab his chest and fell forward across Jackie's lap... There was an instant pause between two shots and the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant. Three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away."

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340264/m1/1/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Edited August 8 by Keven Hofeling

[Kevin Balch]

It can be easily shown using college freshman physics and data on the braking response of very skilled drivers and deceleration studies of seated passengers in mass transit systems that if the limo had come to a complete stop without very careful coordination with the secret service follow up car, the follow up car would likely rear-ended the limo or at the very least hit or pinned Clint Hill between the two vehicles. An immobilized JFK already leaning over from his wounds would likely have been slammed into the back of the jump seat and ended up on the floor. How could that be edited out?

If anyone doubts this, try an experiment having two cars traveling at 10 mph one following the other separated by a distance of 5 feet and have the lead car stop. Please share your results as well as what you told the insurance company and whether they bought it.

Here’s a Horne/Mantik article claiming that the limo stop was edited out but no jumps appear in the Z-film because it was filmed at 48 frames per second so plenty of offending frames could be removed with no apparent effect.

But then why did none of those that viewed the projected film in Dallas notice any slow-motion effects which would have been obvious?

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/21299.html

Edited August 8 by Kevin Balch

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The detailed recollections of eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Films and photographs come out of the camera unaltered; that is their default state. When there is a conflict between eye-witnesses and photographic evidence, we have a ready-made explanation: the eye-witnesses were mistaken.

 

Not so, bucko.

The alternative is that photographic evidence has been altered.

You so conveniently forget that a government cover-up occurred. And that in cover-ups, evidence does get altered.

 

[Kevin Balch]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Not so, bucko.

The alternative is that photographic evidence has been altered.

You so conveniently forget that a government cover-up occurred. And that in cover-ups, evidence does get altered.

 

Has anyone in the limo or secret service follow up car testified that the limo stopped? Wouldn’t these witnesses be the most significant?

[Sean Coleman]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Not so, bucko.

The alternative is that photographic evidence has been altered.

You so conveniently forget that a government cover-up occurred. And that in cover-ups, evidence does get altered.

 

But the time, technology and expertise wasn’t available back then?