The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Denise Hazelwood]

1 minute ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

A : Brugioni misremembered, decades later.

B : Rather misremembered, or lied.

C : Costella has proved absolutely nothing regarding alteration, and in fact, many of his claims have been thoroughly debunked. If you care to throw your hat into the ring with a guy who believes he was being tracked by rain sensors when he and Jack White were in Dealey Plaza, be my guest.

D : George Hickey did not shoot John F. Kennedy.

I contend that you are wrong on all of the above. However, if you can point me to the source that Costella’s Z-film work has been “thoroughly debunked,” I will certainly take a look at it. Specifically the Z-film. I don’t care about the rain sensors thing or the fact that his work was published in a book edited by Fetzer.

[Tom Gram]

Not sure if relevant, but I came across a memo from the FBI, dated 12/4/63, that references a timing analysis of the Z-film. Some gun company owner Melvin Johnson who was tight with the FBI reached out after seeing the 11/29 Life article because he thought the interval between the first two shots was too short for a bolt action rifle.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62277#relPageId=5

What’s interesting is they mention that the interval between the first and third shots was 7 seconds, and that the speed of the film was assumed to be 16fps. That’s pretty similar to some of the NPIC notes. 

In the first memo on Johnson, it says that the info is being passed on to Ivan Conrad. I have not been able to find anything on an FBI lab timing analysis of the Z-film though, and it seems odd that they’d do something like that just to appease this Johnson character. 

Do we have any info on a shot timing analysis of the Z-film conducted at the FBI Lab prior to Dec. 4th? 

I also found the memo cited by Melanson on Zapruder saying the SS had his camera on Dec. 3rd because they “wanted to do some checking of it”: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62284#relPageId=21

[Denise Hazelwood]

11 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

There are NO frames used by Itek which are missing from every Nix version in existence today.

Prior to the Itek Study in 1967, there was no official frame count for the Nix film, and rather than counting the actual frames and assigning "proper" frame numbers to each one, Itek chose to use the alphanumeric system you cited. (Why Itek did not do a proper frame count is unknown - perhaps they were told not to do so, perhaps they simply didn't bother to do so - we just don't know!)

Well, Nix himself said to Mark Lane that some frames were “missing” from his film, and some were “ruined.” So whether a copy of the film was made before the frames were cut or ruined is an open question, in my book.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

If you can point me to the source that Costella’s Z-film work has been “thoroughly debunked,” I will certainly take a look at it.

https://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

https://www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Plenty of debunking here of Costella-adjacent and "Great Zapruder Film Hoax" content, not to mention excellent rebuttals posted here on this forum over the past 20 years.

Edited June 24 by Jonathan Cohen

[Denise Hazelwood]

13 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

https://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

https://www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Plenty of debunking here of Costella-adjacent and "Great Zapruder Film Hoax" content.

The 2 craiglamson links deal with only one of Costella’s multiple “proofs.” IF he made a mistake with the straightness issue of the lamppost, the craiglamson response does not affect the others. I will contact Costella to see what he says. But there are still his other separate “proofs” that are not addressed in these articles. Until such time as they are addressed, his work is not “thoroughly debunked,” but perhaps this one aspect might be. In the meantime I warn against throwing the baby out with the bath water. 
 

Your “here” link refers to the Moorman photo, not the Z-film. To me, the issue has never been whether Moorman took the photo (she indicated that she did from Day 1) but whether she was standing in the street when she took it. But that is a whole separate issue.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Your “here” link refers to the Moorman photo, not the Z-film. To me, the issue has never been whether Moorman took the photo (she indicated that she did from Day 1) but whether she was standing in the street when she took it. But that is a whole separate issue.

And that "issue," as prominently flogged in Costella's book, has been definitively shown to be total nonsense by researchers such as Josiah Thompson.

Edited June 24 by Jonathan Cohen

[Denise Hazelwood]

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And that "issue," as prominently flogged in Costella's book, has been definitively shown to be total nonsense by researchers such as Josiah Thompson.

Well I don’t know that Costella ever had anything to say about Moorman on the street, but that is not mentioned in any of his proofs on his website. In any case, she herself has said that she stepped onto the street in at least one early interview, but in others (possibly after the Z film became more known) she said that she “stepped up to the curb.” By the Altgens 6 photo, I would say that she was in the street, based on the way her shadow is seen.

But that’s a separate argument.

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This, IN MY OPINION, is complete nonsense.

 

Okay. So you're the kind of guy who believes your cookies are magically disappearing till you get an exterminator to certify you have a mouse problem.

Got it!

 

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The autopsy photos show a wound EXACTLY where it is seen on the right side of the head in the Zapruder film.

 

The Zapruder film shows a huge blob coming out from the right temple area. The right temple area is fully intact in the autopsy photos.

 

I notice that you can't argue the other evidence that the Zapruder film was altered... that not a single medical professional saw such a wound, nor did the autopsy report note such a wound,

 

[Chris Scally]

15 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Well, Nix himself said to Mark Lane that some frames were “missing” from his film, and some were “ruined.” So whether a copy of the film was made before the frames were cut or ruined is an open question, in my book.

Denise,

Orville Nix got his film back from the processors in the early hours of December 1, 1963, and gave his original film to the FBI later (around 8 AM) that morning. The FBI copied the film, sent the copy to FBI HQ, and returned the original to Mr. Nix on December 4. Mr. Nix then handed the camera-original film over to UPI in New York on December 6, and it was never seen again by any member of the NIx family.

The official transcript of Mark Lane's interview of Orville Nix for "Rush to Judgment" clearly shows that, in reply to a question from Lane ("Are there some frames missing from the film which you now have?"), Nix replied, "Well I don't know that there's frames missing, but during the processing it could be that - uh - some of the frames were ruint (sic)" (Transcript, p. 2. My emphasis added)

Later in the interview, Nix again suggested that there might have been frames lost in the processing of his film - he said that the  copy of the film which he had at that time (March 1966) might not have the same number of frames as the original film which he gave to the authorities in December 1963 "because of losing maybe - uh - uh - a frame here and there- uh - not that they were cut out - but losing the - losing the - during the processing maybe." (Transcript, p. 8-9. My emphasis added)

For whatever it's worth, this falls somewhat short of a definitive confirmation that some frames were actually “missing” from his original film, and/or some frames were actually “ruined”, in my opinion.
 

[Roger Odisio]

22 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks Jeremy, also Tom, I'm satisfied re your explanation of the Melanson 1984 argument (of the possibility that the Secret Service took the original, not a copy, from Zapruder, the evening of Nov 22) as not being convincing. I can add one more point on that from my own further reflection.

 

Greg:   Thanks Jeremy, also Tom, I'm satisfied re your explanation of the Melanson 1984 argument (of the possibility that the Secret Service took the original, not a copy, from Zapruder, the evening of Nov 22) as not being convincing. I can add one more point on that from my own further reflection.

 

Melanson saw (a) motive--due to the importance of a film of the actual assassination, Secret Service for its CIA lab analysis would want the original, not simply a less-ideal copy for technical analysis, and (b) the analogy of the Secret Service taking the body of JFK by force over the objections of coroner Rose at Parkland, as how the Secret Service might override any objection Zapruder might raise to giving up his original.

 

But "b" fails as I see it, as the analogy not holding. At Parkland, I believe the Secret Service had the backing of the new President himself, LBJ, to take the body. And the Texas state law consideration aside, the "owner" of the body, if anyone, would be Jacqueline, and according to the accounts, Jackie wasn't leaving Parkland without it, which was the justification LBJ gave for ordering the Secret Service to take the body. So the only thing at issue there from the Secret Service's point of view was a clash of conflicting orders or claims--LBJ orders on the one hand, Rose asserting a Texas state law on the other. The Secret Service carried out LBJ's orders. 

 

RO:  It's true that any entity that wanted access to the Zapruder film would want the original, not a copy.  That's true of Life Magazine, govt officials trying to find out what happened, the CIA, or the killers themselves wanting to see what the film showed about their Oswald story.  That's an important key to understand what happened with the Z film.  Who among them would have had priority to access the film at the crucial time for finding out what happened?

 

As to what happened on AF1 while waiting to fly to DC, you should read Pat Speer's thorough account on his website if you haven't.  Everyone knew Jackie wasn't going to leave the body, but It's unlikely Johnson used that fact as his justification to order it sent to his plane. In fact it's unlikely Johnson gave the SS a reason at all other than his order.  He was the President in the midst of a national security crisis.

 

AF2 was there to take Jackie and the body back to DC after the autopsy, which Rose was prepared to do. In fact, the Kennedy people had expected Johnson to take AF2 back to DC and leave AFI for Jackie and the body. Some were upset when they found Lyndon on AF1 instead.

 

While his order was being given  Johnson needed a reason to delay the flight back to DC waiting for the body. So he claimed he wanted to be sworn in first (he knew  he already was President).  Not only that, he insisted the ceremony had to be done by Sarah Hughes a Texas judge who had to first be found and brought to the plane.   According to Pat, Jackie and the body arrived to the plane about half an hour before Hughes did. Mission accomplished.

 

Greg:  As for Zapruder's film, Zapruder was formidable, a savvy successful businessman, with lawyers, and the property was clearly, unambiguously, his. Without a court order, the Secret Service had no right to take it, and if they did could be sued big-time. Meaning, it is not reasonable Secret Service would take the original by force from Zapruder without authorization coming from the top, and a mere head of the Secret Service order would also not be high enough but would have to come from LBJ, and there is no evidence of that. At the ground level, if Secret Service had sought the original (no evidence it did, but if so), Zapruder would 100 percent be predicted to say nor or resist. If Secret Service persisted, there would either be exposure by Zapruder that that happened and legal consequences from his side, or else a secret covert payoff or deal for his silence (also no evidence).

 

RO:  Agree in substance.

 

Greg:  But this is all a nonstarter in terms of motive, because the obvious motive for requesting the copy was to examine it for what it showed--to see what happened--including the timing and the shots analysis. And that could be done from a copy. There was no advance motive to plan to alter a film before having seen it (I think before having seen it, not sure of that detail, of if it had been viewed, not examined in detail closely by expert analysis). 

 

Therefore the story hangs together of a request to borrow a copy, which was then studied and analyzed for interpretation of its content, and the original remained with Zapruder as was 100 percent his legal property, and no evidence otherwise. 

 

And without either access to the original or a theory of a later substitution of the original, the case becomes more difficult to make for means and opportunity for successful alteration to have been done, though my narrow question here concerns solely the issue of the whereabouts of the original.

 

That Zapruder retained the original the weekend of the assassination seems to stand, as best as I can see.

 

RO: Disagree.  First, Zapruder did not keep the original the entire weekend, if that's what you mean. He sold the original, not a copy, for eventually $150,000 (about $1.5 million in today's dollars) ostensibly to Life Magazine on Saturday morning. The original deal was $50,000 for a few days while Life made stills for its magazine.  At which time Life was to return the original to Zapruder in exchange for a copy Zapruder had kept.  But that deal was expanded later to include full film rights after work had been done on the film at the two CIA sites. I thought that was well established.

 

Melanson was right that all of the entities that wanted the film would have wanted the original, not a copy.   Life as just described. And top govt officials who needed to find out exactly what happened. The latter group included innocent officials seeking the truth and the bad guys who wanted to find out how the film contradicted their Oswald story (they would have known the film did contradict it). 

 

Who do you suppose had priority access? Actually, if you believe Life was fronting for the CIA in the media bidding, as I do, the question answers itself. But even if you don't agree with that, is there any question who would have priority?  Is it possible that Life, even if acting on its own, would have been able to take the original to Chicago at the critical time for fact finding, leaving top govt officials and its buddies at the CIA to make do with a copy?

 

The idea, believed for decades, that Life had taken the original film directly to its Chicago headquarters was the cover story, originally offered to conceal the work done on it at the two CIA labs. Replete with "documentary evidence" furnished to the gullible.

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Replete with "documentary evidence" furnished to the gullible.

Evidence is not for the gullible, Roger. The burden is on you to demonstrate to a reasonable standard - with evidence, not just belief and speculation - that NPIC handled the original Zapruder film. 

Hunter and McMahon gave totally contradictory accounts on the film itself. McMahon said he thought he dealt with 8mm unslit film, and came to the conclusion, 30 years later, that he’d handled the original because of the quality of the film. 

DH: …how did you come to your conclusion today that you dealt with the original film 

HM: All right, ah, I think it was a combination of everything you said, along with, ah the quality of the film…

Hunter on the other hand thought he dealt with 16mm film, but specifically said it was not 8mm unslit format. He also had a “reasonably strong impression” there were NO images between the sprocket holes. He also described the film as “not very high resolution”. 

Is that really convincing enough for you, especially when all the other evidence points to the film being the SS copy that was sent to Washington? Are you sure you don’t just want to believe that NPIC had the original, because if they didn’t the case for alteration that weekend falls apart? 

Edited June 25 by Tom Gram

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Evidence is not for the gullible, Roger. The burden is on you to demonstrate to a reasonable standard - with evidence, not just belief and speculation - that NPIC handled the original Zapruder film. 

Hunter and McMahon gave totally contradictory accounts on the film itself. McMahon said he thought he dealt with 8mm unslit film, and came to the conclusion, 30 years later, that he’d handled the original because of the quality of the film. 

DH: …how did you come to your conclusion today that you dealt with the original film 

HM: All right, ah, I think it was a combination of everything you said, along with, ah the quality of the film…

Hunter on the other hand thought he dealt with 16mm film, but specifically said it was not 8mm unslit format. He also had a “reasonably strong impression” there were NO images between the sprocket holes. He also described the film as “not very high resolution”. 

Is that really convincing enough for you, especially when all the other evidence points to the film being the SS copy that was sent to Washington? Are you sure you don’t just want to believe that NPIC had the original, because if they didn’t the case for alteration that weekend falls apart? 

Strange response, Tom. In the note you are responding to, I was considering what happened to the original film that Life bought from Zapruder.  Obviously Life was not the only entity who had a distinct interest in what the film showed.  Kennedy had just been murdered. Uncertainty abounded.  Top government officials had a responsibility to find out what happened, and quickly.

Briefing boards made from the film were necessary to do that.  Holding the strip of film up to the light wasn't enough.

We know, don't we, Tom, that Brugioni, the NPIC's top film analyst made such boards starting late Saturday night. We can assume that was the best answer about the film content possible at the time.  Before those boards were even finished, the film was shipped off to a lab no one but the CIA knew at the time even existed.

When I asked Jeremy what was done there at HW--what was the purpose of sending the film there in secrecy--he said,  they probably just wanted more information. Pardon me, but that's not credible,  unless a case can be made that Brugioni's boards were somehow inadequate to show what happened.  Which, admittedly is not possible because, according to Brugioni, the CIA destroyed them about a decade later when they found he still had a copy.  Why did the CIA destroy Brugioni's boards? Why was a second set done that weekend?  Can you offer a better answer about what you think was done at HW, Tom?

Even if the original film made it to Chicago--i.e., we weren't completely lied to for decades about that--how long do you think it would have taken the government, the CIA or some high officials, to say to Life (even if you think life was acting solely on its own):   National Security.  We need to take the original to our NPIC to make briefing boards to find out what happened and we need to use the original film to do that.  That's  what is most important now, National Security.

However the original film got to the NPIC that Saturday, whether after first being sent to Chicago or directly from Dallas,*there will be no documentary evidence to show that trip or the subsequent one to HW*, Tom. That's how they got away with the Chicago story for decades.  Your insistence on relying on documentary evidence, and trying to exclude everything else, is particularly hollow in this instance.

I said your note was strange because I was focusing on the question of whether it's likely Brugioni was using the original film when he made his boards, as he thought he was.  You answered with your take on what McMahon and Hunter did with what film to make the second set of boards!  The film that "SS Agent Bill Smith" told McMahon he was bringing from Rochester where it had been developed.

Relevance? Is it clear to you that I don't think the film M&H used was any longer the original?

 

[Tom Gram]

Just to reiterate, an NPIC employee named “Sandy” - possibly a nickname for Capt. Pierre Sands - was apparently deposed by the Rockefeller Commission and asked about the NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film. He supposedly said he could not recall when he took the analysis notes, but thought perhaps it was done “several days” after the assassination: 

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

I did a very quick browse through the ROCKCOM files in JFK database explorer on MFF but could not locate a transcript fitting that description. 

Do we have a solid list of the witness who gave testimony to ROCKCOM at least? 

I can’t say I’m particularly optimistic. ROCKCOM for example almost unquestionably interviewed William Kent. William Sturbitts referred his interviewers to Kent during his deposition to answer a very important question, and said Kent was literally “in the building” at that time. I have looked hard for evidence of that interview but have not been able to find anything.

Then again, a lot of ROCKCOM records are not online, so maybe it’s buried at NARA somewhere.

This interview with “Sandy” could potentially answer some questions about this NPIC fiasco, so I think it’s worth looking for at least. 

Edited June 25 by Tom Gram

[Keven Hofeling]

On 6/24/2024 at 5:10 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

And that "issue," as prominently flogged in Costella's book, has been definitively shown to be total nonsense by researchers such as Josiah Thompson.

Mr. Cohen:

In what way, and when and where (citations!) did Josiah Thompson show Mary Moorman's claim that she stepped onto Elm Street prior to shooting Polaroid # 5?

Mary Moorman herself -- who in recent years has been under the influence of a group of lone nutters closely associated with the Sixth Floor Museum -- told me on Facebook a few years ago that she had not in fact stepped into the street to take the photo, but when I researched the question I found the following:

1. The Dallas Times-Herald Reported on the day of the assassination that Mary Moorman and Jean Hill had been standing in the street when Moorman took the photograph.
2. In a 1967 CBS special on the Kennedy assassination Mary Moorman specifically described that she stepped out into the street "and stood there and looked through [her camera] for quite a few seconds" before taking the photograph (See footage of the interview in the video below).
3. In an interview with Charley Jones on News Radio 1080 KRLD, broadcast live from The Sixth Floor Museum in 1997, Mary Moorman reiterated the claim that she was in the street when she captured the photograph.
4. Jean Hill, after the assassination, told authorities that she had called to the President to get his attention, and Mary Moorman also repeated this claim in a Discovery Channel special.
5. To the Warren Commission in 1964, and in a 1995 letter to historian Richard B. Trask, Hill stated that she had "jumped into the street and yelled, 'Mr. President, we want to take your picture!'"

From the Warren Commission testimony of Jean Hill [https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Hill.pdf]:

Thus, based upon their own accounts, Mary Moorman stepped into the street to take Polaroid #5, and Jean Hill stepped into the street with her to get the President’s attention. The Zapruder film, however, depicts both women standing on the grass and shows Hill standing completely still on the grass, with hands clasped, and only turning her head toward the President at the last moment. Unless you are among the lone nutters who summarily dismiss the testimony of 50 Parkland and Bethesda witnesses attesting to the existence of the large occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head, these discrepancies between Moorman and Hill's testimony and the imagery of them depicted in the Zapruder film are a serious problem, especially for Zapruder film authenticity apologists of all colors and stripes.

My interest in these questions stemmed from the fact that I had always been troubled by the Zapruder film imagery of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill because Mary Moorman and Jean Hill are depicted as towering giants in the background, larger in size than the occupants of the Presidential Limousine in the foreground, which is violative of basic photographic principles.

In the video below -- as indicated in the brief segment following Mary Moorman's filmed statement to CBS that she had in fact stepped into the street -- the presence of the towering giant spectator imagery in the extant Zapruder film are indicative of compositing techniques by which foreground imagery can be manipulated with a new background added in:

The film compositing and masking techniques alluded to in the video above are more fully explained in the following video:

'Uncovering the Probable Techniques Used to Alter the Zapruder Film in November 1963'  https://youtu.be/hgCCl5ep9dI

Drawing inspiration from the groundbreaking research of esteemed Australian physicist John Costella, this video delves into a meticulous examination of the intricate processes possibly employed in the creation of the Zapruder film. By exploring the technological capabilities accessible to forgers during the pivotal year of 1963, we aim to provide a detailed and enlightening analysis of the potential methodologies utilized in crafting this historic piece of footage. Join us on a journey through history and technology as we uncover the secrets behind one of the most iconic films of our time.

 

Edited June 27 by Keven Hofeling