The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15399-dino-brugioni/

 

This is a post by Bill Kelly and others from 2010.  It is loaded with information.  I post it in the hopes you will read it and that it will discourage you from posting the kind of things you do below, into which I now dive.

 

Tom:  Isn’t McMahon’s reported 30 year old hearsay that SS Agent “Bill Smith” told him he’d brought the film to Rochester the only “evidence” the film was ever sent to Hawkeye Works at all? 

 

RO:  No.  "Smith" told McMahon he was bringing the film *from* Rochester.  Brugioni said that before his boards were finished the "SS agents" left with the film, but as far as I know he didn't say to where. We've since learned that in fact there were regular flights by the CIA between DC and Rochester (it's in the Kelly post).  The trip was not unusual but this one had a special urgency

 

So let's see.  The film went somewhere from the NPIC early Sunday morning and about 10-11 hours later it (was it the same unaltered film?) showed up from Rochester according to "Smith".

 

So, you ask, do we have *evidence* that it was sent to HW during that time away from NPIC?   You know, to HW, which was so secret its name was even classified until 2010. Has the CIA provided us with that "evidence" about its lab?  (There have been FOIA requests to the CIA but you can guess at the answers.)  I suggest you stop asking such silly questions you should already know the answer to.

 

Tom:  To be fair, McMahon said he was sure “Smith” told him that, but that doesn’t mean it was true, or that McMahon remembered correctly, or that we should trust 30 year old hearsay unconditionally from a witness with admitted memory problems. 

 

Both McMahon and Hunter said they had nothing to do with preparing the actual briefing boards. They only prepared the prints, so who assembled the briefing boards from their prints? Could it have been Brugioni? The only “evidence” that Brugioni was not involved are Brugioni’s 46-48 year-old highly questionable memories in a series of unsworn interviews. 

 

RO:  Yes, McMahon said some mysterious folks finished the work he and Hunter started. No, it could not have Brugioni who did that.  Brugioni was clear he did not encounter McMahon and Hunter that weekend.  He had no idea what they did until he was told (despite what you claim below).  Brugioni did in fact name others who were there with him Saturday night, despite your claim that he was never asked.  (again, read through the link).

 

Let's take a minute and go over how we know there were in fact two sets of boards done that weekend.

 

I assume you don't dispute the boards McMahon worked on.  They're at NARA, though McMahon pointed to some differences between what he did and the extant boards. 

 

After Brugioni's boards were finished around 5 or 6 AM Sunday morning, the director of the NPIC, Arthur Lindahl, came by and took them, along with the notes Brugioni had prepared, so he could brief John McCone, CIA director that morning.

 

Interestingly, Arthur Schlesinger wrote that at one point McCone had told Bobby he thought there were two shooters.  He had seen Brugioni's boards.  

 

McCone then went to Lyndon Johnson to brief him on what Brugioni's boards showed.  This is new info to me.  Going all the way to Johnson is a clear indication of the importance of the boards and why the film was taken that Saturday to make them.

 

Did none of this happen, Tom?  Is it all lies or misrememberances?

 

Tom:  Brugioni’s answer in the O’Sullivan film that Hunter and McMahon were not present is hardly confidence inspiring. At one point after he’s asked again about McMahon and Hunter’s presence, Brugioni replies “I think there were about three in the lab and three pasting the thing together…”

 

Horne never asks Brugioni to name the “three people in the lab”, at least not in the film. I wonder why. 

 

RO:  See above.

 

Tom:  Brugioni’s justification that he had the original film is even more suspect. His rationale was that: 1) The SS brought it in; and 2) it wasn’t processed in a “typical commercial fashion” i.e. it didn’t come in a box. Also, just like Ben Hunter, Brugioni  said that he did NOT remember images between the sprocket holes.

 

RO:  See the link for a fuller explanation of why Brugioni thought he was working with the original film.  You are mistaken.  Brugioni did remember images between the sprocket holesin the film he worked on.

 

Tom:  Brugioni also did NOT say that he destroyed his set of briefing boards. He said he took the briefing boards out of storage and sent them to the director’s office during the Rockefeller Commission. Well, during the Rockefeller Commission, the CIA said the boards had been removed from storage and were available upon request. Hmmmmm…. 

 

RO:  You have mischaracterized what I said.  I said in 1975 Brugioni was told to get rid of his boards when his then supervisor found out he still had them.  Brugioni sent them to the CIA director's office.  They have not been seen since.  The Rockefeller Commission did not make Brugioni's boards available.  If they had how could you have been doubting there existence all this time!

 

RO:  The timelines are also extremely tight. Brugioni says the SS left with the film around 3-4 AM on Sunday the 24th. Per your theory, the original film was whisked away to HW to be altered, and brought back to NPIC later that same day. 

 

RO:  Yep, that's what I said. The time was short. and combined with the inadequate tools they had, they were unable to eliminate all the incriminating evidence in the film.  Which is why they went back to Zapruder, bought the full film rights *for the purpose of burying the film from public view for as long as they could get away with*.  That turned out to be almost 12 years.

 

Jeremy admitted that it was hard to claim Life was merely acting in its own interest when it buried the film for that long and then gave it back to Zapruder for $1 when a bootleg version was shown on TV.  It was not doing the bidding of the CIA, he thought however, but rather going along with other powerful business interests who feared chaos if people could see the film. 

 

In fact there was quite a reaction when people saw the film--even the tamer, altered version--leading to new investigations of the murder.

 

Can you offer a better reason than Jeremy has as to why Life would bury the film if it was simply acting on its own?

 

Tom:  The most rational conclusion from the available evidence, including the interviews of Brugioni, McMahon, and Hunter, is that the film was only at NPIC once, and it was one of the SS copies. That doesn’t mean I think the two briefing board/analysis scenario is impossible, but to present it as absolute fact based solely on decades-old highly questionable testimony is absurd. 

 

RO:  That's your version of rationality, Tom.  The kind where if the CIA didn't tell us about it, it didn't happen.  I believe I just explained why there were two sets of boards done that weekend.

Brugioni’s own interview, at least the heavily edited version presented by Horne, strongly suggests that he did NOT work on the original Zapruder film. His only rationale is that the Secret Service brought it in, tightly controlled it, and it wasn’t packaged in a box like normal commercial film jobs. That’s literally it. 

Also, where exactly does Brugioni say he saw images between the sprocket holes? If he did, he changed his story. He says, verbatim, in the O’Sullivan film: 

DH: Do you recall image bleed over, between the sprocket holes? 

DB: No 

Also, where does Horne ask Brugioni to name everyone present that night?

Brugioni said that McMahon and Hunter were not there, but he stuttered and was somewhat less than totally coherent when first asked about them. When asked again later, he made a comment that there were “three people in the lab” working on the prints, and three people working on the briefing boards in addition to the only two people he actually named, Ralph Paris and Bill Banfield.

When Brugioni made the “three other people” comment, Horne changed the topic immediately and never followed up. Incredibly, Horne never asked Brugioni to name the eight people he said were present that night, at least not in that film. What makes this even worse is Brugioni says multiple times that he recorded the names of everyone involved to prevent a leak. Do you think the man might have forgotten a few of the names almost 50 years later? 

Brugioni also gave no detail whatsoever on the actual enlargement process. All he said was that “they would take it into the photo lab” and make duplicate negatives. Well who were “they”? That was the extent of Brugioni’s comments on the print making process that evening.

Contrast that with McMahon and Hunter, who both went into substantial technical detail on how they prepared the enlargements. 

It seems possible if not likely that Brugioni was not present in the color lab that night, or only stopped by briefly. Brugioni even says at one point in his interview that he “went downstairs” when he was done. Well, was he ever downstairs in the lab at all? For how long? Horne didn’t ask. 

Also, you now say Brugioni’s boards “have not been seen since”. Just a couple comments up you said “Why did the CIA destroy Brugioni’s boards?”. They didn’t. Brugioni said he removed them from storage and sent them to the director’s office, which aligns almost perfectly with what CIA told the Rockefeller Commission.

The so-called “hinge”, which has been touted as proof of a different set of boards by Horne for years, and was even citied in a FOIA request by Jim Lesar based on Brugioni’s interview, was a piece of tape.

It’s not just the documentary evidence or lack thereof. Your own star witness made several statements that contradict or call into question key elements of the Horne alteration theory. And that’s without even getting into the fact that Brugioni’s unsworn interviews were done 46-48 years after the Kennedy Assassination. 

I will read through that thread, but I’m not interested in any summary of the Janney interviews, particularly any summary from Doug Horne. The interviews were supposedly recorded on MP3. I want to hear Brugioni’s own words. Same deal with the uncut Horne video interviews. Are those interviews available? If not, why not? Brugioni is supposedly the star witness for Z-film alteration. Every word he said on the record should be available for researchers to judge for themselves. 

Edited Thursday at 04:18 AM by Tom Gram

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Brugioni’s own interview, at least the heavily edited version presented by Horne, strongly suggests that he did NOT work on the original Zapruder film. His only rationale is that the Secret Service brought it in, tightly controlled it, and it wasn’t packaged in a box like normal commercial film jobs. That’s literally it. 

Also, where exactly does Brugioni say he saw images between the sprocket holes? If he did, he changed his story. He says, verbatim, in the O’Sullivan film: 

DH: Do you recall image bleed over, between the sprocket holes? 

DB: No 

Also, where does Horne ask Brugioni to name everyone present that night?

Brugioni said that McMahon and Hunter were not there, but he stuttered and was somewhat less than totally coherent when first asked about them. When asked again later, he made a comment that there were “three people in the lab” working on the prints, and three people working on the briefing boards in addition to the only two people he actually named, Ralph Paris and Bill Banfield.

When Brugioni made the “three other people” comment, Horne changed the topic immediately and never followed up. Incredibly, Horne never asked Brugioni to name the at least eight people he said were present that night, at least not in that film. What makes this even worse is Brugioni says multiple times that he recorded the names of everyone involved to prevent a leak. Do you think the man might have forgotten a few of the names almost 50 years later? 

Brugioni also gave no detail whatsoever on the actual enlargement process. All he said was that “they would take it into the photo lab” and make duplicate negatives. Well who were “they”? That was the extent of Brugioni’s comments on the print making process that evening.

Contrast that with McMahon and Hunter, who both went into substantial technical detail on how they prepared the enlargements. 

It seems possible if not likely that Brugioni was not involved in making the actual prints and was not present in the color lab that night, or only stopped by briefly. Brugioni even says at one point in his interview that he “went downstairs” when he was done. Well, was he ever downstairs at all? For how long? Horne didn’t ask. 

Also, you now say Brugioni’s boards “have not been seen since”. Just a couple comments up you said “Why did the CIA destroy Brugioni’s boards?”. They didn’t. Brugioni said he removed them from storage and sent them to the director’s office, which aligns almost perfectly with what CIA told the Rockefeller Commission.

The so-called “hinge”, which has been touted as proof of a different set of boards by Horne for years, and was even citied in a FOIA request by Jim Lesar based on Brugioni’s interview, was a piece of tape.

It’s not just the (substantial) documentary evidence. Your own star witness made several statements that contradict or call into question key elements of the two briefing board event alteration theory. And that’s without even getting into the fact that Brugioni’s unsworn interviews were done 46-48 years after the Kennedy Assassination. 

Mr. Gram:

Your analysis is clearly being hindered by the fact that you are working with fragmentary information. I believe that you will find the following [Pages 1229 through 1243 of Inside the Records Review Board by Douglas Horne] because it contains David Wrone's account of his 2003 interview of Dino Brugioni, a detailed summary of Peter Janney's interviews of Brugioni, and a great deal of information about why Brugioni's 12/23/1963 NPIC briefing board session was entirely separate and distinct from the 12/24/1963 briefing board session of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter.

I have in the past searched high and low for the MP3's of the Peter Janney interviews of Dino Brugioni without success. Doug Horne's summary of those interviews appears to be the best that is publicly available:

Volume IV, Pages 1229 through 1243 of Inside the Records Review Board by Douglas P. Horne

 

[Tom Gram]

9 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Mr. Gram:

Your analysis is clearly being hindered by the fact that you are working with fragmentary information. I believe that you will find the following [Pages 1229 through 1243 of Inside the Records Review Board by Douglas Horne] because it contains David Wrone's account of his 2003 interview of Dino Brugioni, a detailed summary of Peter Janney's interviews of Brugioni, and a great deal of information about why Brugioni's 12/23/1963 NPIC briefing board session was entirely separate and distinct from the 12/24/1963 briefing board session of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter.

I have in the past searched high and low for the MP3's of the Peter Janney interviews of Dino Brugioni without success. Doug Horne's summary of those interviews appears to be the best that is publicly available:

Volume IV, Pages 1229 through 1243 of Inside the Records Review Board by Douglas P. Horne

 

So the only publicly available statements from Brugioni are in the O’Sullivan film? We don’t even have a transcript, let alone a tape, of a single uncut, unedited interview of Brugioni with either Janney or Horne? 

Those interviews took place 13-15 years ago. Based on the O’Sullivan film, I think it’s fair to speculate that those interviews are being withheld to prevent a critical analysis of Brugioni’s statements, and the questions posed to him by Horne and Janney. 

The only detail I noticed in Horne’s summary of the Janney interviews that deviates significantly from the film is Brugioni’s alleged statement “I’m almost sure there were images between the sprocket holes” vs. his hard “No” to Horne in the film. So the absolute best case scenario for your theory is that Brugioni said he was “almost sure” and subsequently changed his story to “No” - and we can’t even verify it without the Janney tape. So convincing. 

On the attendees issue, despite what Roger claimed above, there is nothing in Horne’s summary to suggest that Brugioni was ever asked to name the “three or four photo technicians” who were called into the lab by Banfield, or the “two or three people from the graphics department” called in to assemble the briefing boards upstairs. There is also nothing to suggest that Brugioni was ever asked about his own presence in the color lab that night. A proper line of questioning would’ve gone something like this: 

Q. Mr. Brugioni, you’ve said multiple times that at least three people were called in to the photo lab to perform the enlargements. What were those people’s names?

A. I can’t say I recall. Bill Banfield brought them in. 

Q. You have also said that Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter were not present that night. How can you be so sure if you don’t remember who worked in the lab? 

A. Well they weren’t with me

Q. You’ve also said that you worked on the actual briefing boards upstairs. Was it part of your normal duties to work in the color lab and prepare the actual enlargements? 

A. Well no, I was the duty officer

Q. Do you recall going downstairs to the color lab at all that night? 

A. I think so yes.

Q. Do you remember for how long? 

A. Ah, I suppose not. Maybe a few minutes. 

Q. Did you interact with the lab technicians at all? What did you say? Can you provide a description of what they looked like at least? Their job titles? 

A. I think I did, but I can’t recall who they were. 

Q. Mr. Brugioni, since this is 48 years after the event, and you do not remember who was in the color lab at all, isn’t it possible that Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon were present in the lab that night, and you just don’t remember?

A. Well, yes, I suppose it is possible, but I don’t remember seeing them. 

It seems hard to believe that neither Janney nor Horne would ask such an obvious, important question, so I suspect they did ask and Brugioni just didn’t remember. 

Horne’s summary transitions from the “three or four people” bit directly into saying that Janney “repeatedly and specifically” questioned Brugioni on the presence of Ben Hunter and Pierre Sands in the four follow on interviews. McMahon is not mentioned…

I’m sure Brugioni did deny that Hunter and Sands were there, since he does so in the O’Sullivan film, but unless Brugioni was questioned about specific attendees in the context of his own statement about at least six unnamed people present at NPIC that night, and his own movements during the event, his denials are not credible. Again, Brugioni was interviewed 46-48 years after the assassination. To think he had a perfect memory of what occurred that night is ridiculous. Does it really make sense that Brugioni would completely forget who was there, but perfectly recall who was not there? 

We rightly criticize the Warren Commission for the lack of cross examination, preinterviews, and questions designed to support a specific narrative vs. find the actual truth. We also rightly criticize the government for withholding evidence and records on the JFK assassination. The same standard should apply to the critical community. Brugioni has been presented as the poster child of Horne’s alteration theory, yet we apparently don’t have a single uncut tape or even a verified transcript of any of Brugioni’s several recorded interviews with Horne and Janney between 2009 and 2011? What’s wrong with this picture? Horne was on the ARRB. He should know better. 

From the little we do have, a film edited together to be as provocative as possible, we know that Brugioni made several statements that cast doubt on the validity of Horne’s theory. We also know that Horne lobbed softball questions to Brugioni and avoided key issues in the film. 

I think it’s a safe assumption that the uncut tapes will reveal more of the same. I’ll reserve judgement until I hear the tapes myself, if I ever get the chance, but so far I can’t say I’m particularly impressed. 

Edited Thursday at 04:24 PM by Tom Gram

[Chuck Schwartz]

Here is a short biography of Dino B. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Brugioni

[Roger Odisio]

16 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Brugioni’s own interview, at least the heavily edited version presented by Horne, strongly suggests that he did NOT work on the original Zapruder film. His only rationale is that the Secret Service brought it in, tightly controlled it, and it wasn’t packaged in a box like normal commercial film jobs. That’s literally it. 

Also, where exactly does Brugioni say he saw images between the sprocket holes? If he did, he changed his story. He says, verbatim, in the O’Sullivan film: 

DH: Do you recall image bleed over, between the sprocket holes? 

DB: No 

Also, where does Horne ask Brugioni to name everyone present that night?

Brugioni said that McMahon and Hunter were not there, but he stuttered and was somewhat less than totally coherent when first asked about them. When asked again later, he made a comment that there were “three people in the lab” working on the prints, and three people working on the briefing boards in addition to the only two people he actually named, Ralph Paris and Bill Banfield.

When Brugioni made the “three other people” comment, Horne changed the topic immediately and never followed up. Incredibly, Horne never asked Brugioni to name the eight people he said were present that night, at least not in that film. What makes this even worse is Brugioni says multiple times that he recorded the names of everyone involved to prevent a leak. Do you think the man might have forgotten a few of the names almost 50 years later? 

Brugioni also gave no detail whatsoever on the actual enlargement process. All he said was that “they would take it into the photo lab” and make duplicate negatives. Well who were “they”? That was the extent of Brugioni’s comments on the print making process that evening.

Contrast that with McMahon and Hunter, who both went into substantial technical detail on how they prepared the enlargements. 

It seems possible if not likely that Brugioni was not present in the color lab that night, or only stopped by briefly. Brugioni even says at one point in his interview that he “went downstairs” when he was done. Well, was he ever downstairs in the lab at all? For how long? Horne didn’t ask. 

Also, you now say Brugioni’s boards “have not been seen since”. Just a couple comments up you said “Why did the CIA destroy Brugioni’s boards?”. They didn’t. Brugioni said he removed them from storage and sent them to the director’s office, which aligns almost perfectly with what CIA told the Rockefeller Commission.

The so-called “hinge”, which has been touted as proof of a different set of boards by Horne for years, and was even citied in a FOIA request by Jim Lesar based on Brugioni’s interview, was a piece of tape.

It’s not just the documentary evidence or lack thereof. Your own star witness made several statements that contradict or call into question key elements of the Horne alteration theory. And that’s without even getting into the fact that Brugioni’s unsworn interviews were done 46-48 years after the Kennedy Assassination. 

I will read through that thread, but I’m not interested in any summary of the Janney interviews, particularly any summary from Doug Horne. The interviews were supposedly recorded on MP3. I want to hear Brugioni’s own words. Same deal with the uncut Horne video interviews. Are those interviews available? If not, why not? Brugioni is supposedly the star witness for Z-film alteration. Every word he said on the record should be available for researchers to judge for themselves. 

How about if we focus on the key questions that can lead to better understanding of the alteration question.  Starting with the briefing boards.

 

Brugioni's boards were done for a specific audience: the two persons on the planet with the greatest need to know that weekend about what happened--the new POTUS and the director of the CIA.

 

According to Brugioni, Art Lundahl head of the NPIC, and the man who assigned to Brugioni the task of making the boards, stopped by at 5 or 6 AM Sunday morning, took the finished boards and Brugioni's notes he had prepared, and went off to brief  John McCone.  McCone then briefed Johnson.

 

After futzing around with obviously false claims like nothing was done with the film at the CIA labs, or Brugioni misremembered not just details of what he did that weekend but the very idea he was involved in the process at all (see your latest claim below), you and Jeremy seemed to have settled on a fallback argument against alteration: whatever was done at the labs was done with a copy of the film, not the original.  This, you thought, destroys all alteration claims because Life had the original in Chicago. 

 

With that one stroke you eliminate all of the need to talk about what was done at those labs.  Unfortunately that claim is demonstrably unproven and almost certainly false.

 

How do we know Life kept the original?  You produce *documentary evidence*, including that from Life's negotiator to buy the film, who verified it was put on a plane to Chicago after the bid.

 

As I explained yesterday that proves nothing.  All you have done is produce the evidence you would expect to find that substantiated the claim advanced, and believed for decades, that Life retained the original film that weekend.   

 

But there was plenty of time for the CIA to put the film on one of their planes to be sent to its NPIC lab before work on it was to begin.  If that had been done, we would not know about it.  There would be no documented evidence.

 

There are ways to evaluate your claim.  The boards were created by blowing up important frames about 40 times. Most think using the original was clearly preferable to a copy for doing that.  Wouldn't Johnson and McCone have insisted the film original be used in the boards made for them?

 

Moreover, consider what you're saying.  The POTUS and the CIA director, waiting that Sunday morning to see what the boards revealed, had to settle for a copy being used to make the boards because Life kept the original to make stills for their magazine!!  Does that seem even possible to you?  Do you think CD Jackson would have rejected such a request when it came from Washington?

 

Perhaps more likely, Jackson and Life understood from the beginning that their role was to secure the film that Saturday and turn it over to the CIA. Rights to the film were being bid on by media orgs Saturday morning.  Obviously the CIA  couldn't enter the bid itself but it had a strong interest in what the film had captured. As indicated by McCone receiving the first briefing Sunday morning once the boards were finished 

 

Bottom line:  the idea that Life kept the original that Saturday so that a copy had to be used for the briefing boards intended for Johnson and McCone is not credible.

 

Tom:  Also, you now say Brugioni’s boards 'have not been seen since". Just a couple comments up you said “Why did the CIA destroy Brugioni’s boards?" They didn’t. Brugioni said he removed them from storage and sent them to the director’s office, which aligns almost perfectly with what CIA told the Rockefeller Commission."

 

RO:  Brugioni was ordered to get rid of his boards by sending them to the director's office in 1975. You're saying there is some kind of contradiction between my saying his boards have not been seen since and asking why the CIA destroyed them? 

 

You're saying the CIA did not destroy them?  Am I reading that right?  Where are they, Tom?.  Could I file a FOIA to see them?  Could Bill and Larry include them on their list of things they want NARA to add to the JFKA Collection?  They are clearly JFKA records. 

 

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

you and Jeremy seemed to have settled on a fallback argument against alteration: whatever was done at the labs was done with a copy of the film, not the original.  This, you thought, destroys all alteration claims because Life had the original in Chicago.

Since there is no good evidence that the original film ever went to NPIC or Hawkeye Works, there is no good evidence that it was altered on the weekend of the assassination.

If the film wasn't altered on that weekend, there is no plausible scenario in which it could have been altered at all. Copies of copies were made and distributed shortly after that weekend. All of these copies would have had to be rounded up and replaced by fakes in order to prevent the alteration of the original coming to light. There is no evidence that any such rounding up of copies took place. The existing copies are consistent in the scenes they depict; they can't be divided into pre-alteration and post-alteration copies.

Quote

With that one stroke you eliminate all of the need to talk about what was done at those labs.

If the original film didn't go to "those labs", whatever happened there is of no relevance to claims of alteration.

Quote

But there was plenty of time for the CIA to put the film on one of their planes to be sent to its NPIC lab before work on it was to begin.

The timing of Roger's scenario doesn't seem to add up.

Life magazine must have begun work on the film in Chicago on the Saturday afternoon or evening in order for the magazine to appear on the news-stands on the Monday morning. But the film that was worked on at NPIC apparently didn't arrive there until late on the Saturday evening. If, as Roger believes, the NPIC film was the original, which film did Life use?

Was it one of the first-day copies? If so, which one? Roger has previously claimed, or at least implied, that none of the three first-day copies were in Chicago over the weekend of the assassination: the two Secret Service copies were in Dallas and Washington, and Zapruder retained the other copy in Dallas. In that case, Life can only have used the original. But Roger's scenario also requires the original to be at NPIC on the Saturday evening. Was the original film in two places at once?

According to pro-alteration believers, the production of the faked 'original' film was not finished until the afternoon or evening of the Sunday. Copies of this faked film would have needed to be made, to replace the authentic first-day copies. What's the timetable for creating these fakes and replacing all of the authentic first-day copies?

If Roger really wants to keep beating this particular dead horse, perhaps he could set out for us a step-by-step account, in as much detail as possible, of which version of the film (the original, the first-day copies, the fake 'original', and any faked copies) went where, and when, over the weekend of the assassination. Of course, he should feel free to include as much documentary evidence as he can find, to justify his scenario.

If his scenario requires that films were rounded up and replaced after the weekend of the assassination, he should feel free to explain exactly how this might plausibly have been done without leaving a trace of evidence, given that the films appear to have held by various bodies in various locations, perhaps including Washington, Dallas, New York and Chicago.

For comparison, the standard account is very straightforward, and doesn't require any films to have been in two places at once, or to have been surreptitiously replaced:

1. The original film was in Dallas until the Saturday morning or early afternoon, when it was flown to Chicago and used to produce the magazine which was on sale on the Monday. It stayed in Chicago for the remainder of the weekend.
2. One first-day copy was flown from Dallas to the Secret Service office in Washington DC overnight on the Friday, arriving early on the Saturday morning. This copy is the only plausible candidate for the film that was taken to NPIC later on the Saturday.
3. A second first-day copy was flown from Dallas to FBI HQ in Washington DC on the Saturday afternoon or evening, where it remained for the rest of the weekend.
4. The final first-day copy was handed over to Richard Stolley on the Saturday morning, and was either flown to Chicago along with the original film and from there to New York, or it was flown direct to New York, where it was viewed in Life's offices on the Sunday.

[Roger Odisio]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

Since there is no good evidence that the original film ever went to NPIC or Hawkeye Works, there is no good evidence that it was altered on the weekend of the assassination.

 

you and Jeremy seemed to have settled on a fallback argument against alteration: whatever was done at the labs was done with a copy of the film, not the original.  This, you thought, destroys all alteration claims because Life had the original in Chicago.

 

Jeremy:  Since there is no good evidence that the original film ever went to NPIC or Hawkeye Works, there is no good evidence that it was altered on the weekend of the assassination.

 

RO:  I said there is no tangible evidence that the CIA flew the original Z film to its NPIC lab on Saturday *because there wouldn't be*.  It amazes me, Jeremy, that you  think simply repeating your mantra that there is no evidence of the CIA doing that is a response to my point.

 

The cover story that Saturday that the film went only to Chicago for Life to work on it right away because publication was imminent, which Jeremy believes and which held for decades, is not only without evidence that can be believed, it's premise false.

 

Life first published 31 black and white stills from the film on Nov. 29, one week after the murder, not that Monday.  Here is their introduction to the pictures in that issue:

 

"On these and the following two pages is a remarkable and exclusive series of pictures which show, for the first time and in tragic detail, the fate which befell our President." (emphasis added).

 

Brugioni showed up at the NPIC at about 10 PM Saturday to work on the film.  There was plenty of time for it to have been flown to him.

 

The briefing boards he produced were intended to show the POTUS and the CIA director, with as much clarity as possible, what happened to JFK.  It's ludicrous to claim that Brugioni would have had to make do with a copy because Life kept the original to work on stills for its magazine. 

 

Life publisher, CD Jackson, was himself a life long CIA asset. You think it's possible he would have rejected a request from Washington on national security grounds that he turn over the original so briefing boards can be made for Johnson and McCone?

 

As I said yesterday, probably no such request was even necessary.  The CIA couldn't bid for the film rights themselves.  Jackson's rep won the bid with the intention of turning the film over so top govt officials could, early on, see what happened, and, if necessary, try to control what information about the murder gets out. 

 

The question is what happened to the original Z film.  Was it altered?  The rest of your post attempts to divert us into a discussion of the copies. 

 

 

[Matt Cloud]

10 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

you and Jeremy seemed to have settled on a fallback argument against alteration: whatever was done at the labs was done with a copy of the film, not the original.  This, you thought, destroys all alteration claims because Life had the original in Chicago.

 

Jeremy:  Since there is no good evidence that the original film ever went to NPIC or Hawkeye Works, there is no good evidence that it was altered on the weekend of the assassination.

 

RO:  I said there is no tangible evidence that the CIA flew the original Z film to its NPIC lab on Saturday *because there wouldn't be*.  It amazes me, Jeremy, that you  think simply repeating your mantra that there is no evidence of the CIA doing that is a response to my point.

 

The cover story that Saturday that the film went only to Chicago for Life to work on it right away because publication was imminent, which Jeremy believes and which held for decades, is not only without evidence that can be believed, it's premise false.

 

Life first published 31 black and white stills from the film on Nov. 29, one week after the murder, not that Monday.  Here is their introduction to the pictures in that issue:

 

"On these and the following two pages is a remarkable and exclusive series of pictures which show, for the first time and in tragic detail, the fate which befell our President." (emphasis added).

 

Brugioni showed up at the NPIC at about 10 PM Saturday to work on the film.  There was plenty of time for it to have been flown to him.

 

The briefing boards he produced were intended to show the POTUS and the CIA director, with as much clarity as possible, what happened to JFK.  It's ludicrous to claim that Brugioni would have had to make do with a copy because Life kept the original to work on stills for its magazine. 

 

Life publisher, CD Jackson, was himself a life long CIA asset. You think it's possible he would have rejected a request from Washington on national security grounds that he turn over the original so briefing boards can be made for Johnson and McCone?

 

As I said yesterday, probably no such request was even necessary.  The CIA couldn't bid for the film rights themselves.  Jackson's rep won the bid with the intention of turning the film over so top govt officials could, early on, see what happened, and, if necessary, try to control what information about the murder gets out. 

 

The question is what happened to the original Z film.  Was it altered?  The rest of your post attempts to divert us into a discussion of the copies. 

 

 

FYI -- generally speaking the cover dates for TIME-LIFE (and other) publications were post-dated from their newsstand availability.  The Nov. 29 issue in other words was available prior to that Friday.  Was it available on that Monday, the 25th, in accordance with normal practice?

[Jonathan Cohen]

30 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Life first published 31 black and white stills from the film on Nov. 29, one week after the murder, not that Monday. 

The issue was DATED Nov. 29. Surely it was physically available before that date, which means Jeremy's timeline is totally valid.

[Keven Hofeling]

On 6/26/2024 at 8:07 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Precisely. Here's more on the subject.

With regard to Mr. @Pat Speer's anecdotal story about Mary Moorman, what comes to mind for me is the following excerpt from David Lifton's "Pig on a Leash," describing the control exerted over Mary Moorman and her story by the Sixth Floor Museum (which is, in my opinion, a CIA front) during the filming of a documentary, and I just have to think to myself, "that poor woman":

Consider what happened on a recent documentary shoot in Dealey Plaza. Here was an important issue for The Sixth Floor Museum, which controls both the Moorman copyright as well as the Zapruder. Mary Moorman was being interviewed for a documentary to be broadcast on national television.

Mary told major media interviewers as recently as a few years ago how she stepped into the street to take President Kennedy's picture and then, after the shots were fired, stepped back on the grass. She was most specific about these two events: the step into the street, the step back onto the grass. Here are here exact words:

Moorman: Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend was with me, we were right ready to take the picture. And she's not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did holler for the president, "Mr. President, look this way!" And I'd stepped out off the curb into the street to take the picture. And snapped it immediately. And that evidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the sound. And ...

Jones: Now when you heard the sound, did you immediately think, "rifle shot"?

Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong. I certainly didn't know what was wrong.

The trouble is the Zapruder film shows no such thing. And if this actually happened, then Mary's account is further evidence-just like the car stop-that the film was altered through professional optical editing, where Mary was put up on the grass.

But now, some years later, at a time when The Sixth Floor Museum controls Mary's copyright, she is being interviewed by the Museum's Gary Mack. Mack has learned she should not say she stepped into the street, but she still says she stepped forward. And she says so again and again, on each successive take. The problem is: Mary doesn't even do that on the Zapruder film. She just stands there.

And Mary apparently remembers something else-how slowly the car was moving. Just the way she told me when I visited her back in November 1971 and she told me that it stopped. Now she simply says it "wasn't going that fast."

The film shoot stops.

Mack cuts in. HE turns to the cameraman and says, "That's it", indicating the camera should be turned off.

Someone says "going that fast". Gary Mack looks down at the grass and fidgets at Mary's blooper. HE turns to Mary and says, "They will or will not use that. That's OK."

A senior producer walks over, in a casual manner: "Wasn't going that fast"? he says, mimicking her. Then he continues, "Mary, you're so cute!" The implication is clear. She should be careful about what she says and stick to the script.

A later situation -- reminiscent of the coercion of Mary Moorman by the Sixth Floor Museum -- developed during a 2016 presentation by Dealey Plaza witness, Bill Newman, which was being moderated by Sixth Floor Museum curator, Stephen Fagen, who can be seen in the following video intervening to get Newman to change the subject after he (Newman) had begun to tell his story about the Presidential Limousine coming to a complete stop in Dealey Plaza during the assassination (yet another event that is not depicted in the Zapruder film):

 

But getting back to controversy regarding the question of whether the accounts of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill having stepped onto Elm Street for Moorman to shoot Polaroid #5 (when the Zapruder film depicts them at that second standing on the grass), a closely related issue is the question of why the black shoes of both women are depicted in the Zapruder film as being white? 

 

For Mr. Cohen, who has presented an article from the old John McAdams (aka "Paul Nolan") propaganda site showcasing the results of an "experiment" that Josiah Thompson characterized as having disproved Mary Moorman's standing in the street story (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/moorman1.htm), I present the following research article from Professor James Fetzer, written as a response to Thompson's article in 2009 (prior to Fetzer's Sandy Hook related problems), which demonstrates that Thompson's article was a smear job that proved nothing, performed in the spirit of the Sixth Floor Museum -- as elucidated above -- in association with the Sixth Floor Museum's Gary Mack:

Moorman In The Street Revisited

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n2/v5n2-moorman-revisited.pdf

 

Edited Friday at 07:39 PM by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

FYI -- generally speaking the cover dates for TIME-LIFE (and other) publications were post-dated from their newsstand availability.  The Nov. 29 issue in other words was available prior to that Friday.  Was it available on that Monday, the 25th, in accordance with normal practice?

David Wrone's book on the subject states that issues of the November 29, 1963 issue of LIFE hit newsstands on Monday, November 25, while Harrison Livingstone's "Hoax of the Century" states that it was Tuesday, November 26th.

[Joseph McBride]

I bought that issue of LIFE on Tuesday, November 26, at a magazine/newspaper store

in downtown Milwaukee. They had several piles of the issue lined up against a wall.

I don't know if copies were available for sale on Monday. We soon got our copy in the mail too.

[Paul Rigby]

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

I bought that issue of LIFE on Tuesday, November 26, at a magazine/newspaper store

in downtown Milwaukee. They had several piles of the issue lined up against a wall.

I don't know if copies were available for sale on Monday. We soon got our copy in the mail too.

Richard J. H. Johnston, “Movie Amateur Filmed Attack; Sequence Is Sold to Magazine” New York Times, November 24, 1963, p5:

Life magazine will publish the pictures in its issue dated Friday, Nov. 29. The issue will be on the streets next Tuesday.

Ed Seitz, “What’s Going … Those Assassination Films,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, Wednesday, 27 November 1963, 7:

From ‘Black Friday’ to ‘Blue Monday,’ the one thing Cincinnati TV watchers did NOT see was camera coverage at the instant of assassination. This may have been a blessing. But when the word got round Tuesday that Life magazine’s current issue was carrying movie clips of the actual shooting, news stand stocks were bought up in a hurry. Bell-Block sold out its quota of 150 copies in two hours, then said ‘sorry’ to a stream of would-be purchasers.

Rick Freedman, “Pictures of Assassination Fall to Amateurs on Street,” Editor & Publisher, November 30, 1963, pp 16, 17 & 67:

“The picture sequence ran as a four-page spread in Life’s Nov. 29 issue, which came out Nov. 26.”

[Roger Odisio]

8 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The issue was DATED Nov. 29. Surely it was physically available before that date, which means Jeremy's timeline is totally valid.

Your point, since verified by others, establishes nothing of the sort, Jonathon.

The sequence of event that weekend is straightforward.   

The bidding for film rights was held Saturday morning at Zapruder's office. Soon after, Life put the film original it had bought on a plane to Chicago.

Meanwhile CiA staff let CD Jackson at LIfe know that Johnson and McCone wanted briefing boards done at the NPIC as soon as feasible.  They would need the film original for that. Jackson would do whatever the CIA, and Johnson, wanted.  The CIA flew the original film from Chicago to the NPIC in DC later on Saturday.

Arhtur Lundahl, head of NPIC, chose Brugioni, his top photo analyst, to make the boards.  Brugioni got to work around 10 PM Saturday night.  

At 5 or 6 AM Sunday morning Lundahl showed up at the NPIC and took the finished boards, together with notes Brugioni had prepared, to brief McCone.  McCone then briefed Johnson. 

I make no statement about what copy of the film Life used to make the stills for its magazine. They had options.  But, clearly Johnson and McCone had priority over the use of the original film that weekend. 

 

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

Life first published 31 black and white stills from the film on Nov. 29, one week after the murder, not that Monday.

As others have pointed out, Friday 29th was the official publication date but the magazine, like most magazines, was on sale earlier than that. I got my information from page 35 of David Wrone's The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination: "the issue appearing on the morning of Monday, November 25 (bearing the date November 29)". Wrone cites Loudon Wainwright's The Great American Magazine: An Inside History of Life, pp.369, 376. Maybe Wrone got the date wrong, and the magazine didn't appear until the Tuesday. Or maybe the first copies appeared in Chicago on the Monday, and were available throughout the country on the Tuesday. Either way, someone needs to reconcile this with an altered 'original' which wasn't available until late on the Sunday.

Quote

Brugioni showed up at the NPIC at about 10 PM Saturday to work on the film.  There was plenty of time for it to have been flown to him.

There was plenty of time for the Secret Service's first-day copy, which had arrived in Washington in the early hours of Saturday 23rd, to be taken to NPIC by 10pm.

Quote

The briefing boards he produced were intended to show the POTUS and the CIA director, with as much clarity as possible, what happened to JFK.

Since the film was brought to NPIC by the Secret Service, the briefing boards were intended to show the Secret Service what had happened to JFK. The Secret Service reported ultimately to the president, but not to the director of the CIA, as far as I'm aware. Does Roger have any evidence that the Secret Service was acting on behalf of the director of the CIA? Obviously, recollections from decades later don't count. Pure speculation doesn't count either.

(Minor digression: If the whole film-alteration thing was an integral part of the assassination plot, as Roger seems to believe, why did the all-powerful Bad Guys allow any copies to be made before the film was altered? Why did they allow two of those copies to be held by the Secret Service? If they had co-opted the Secret Service to do their bidding, why go to all the extra trouble of involving Life? Why not just use the Secret Service to obtain the original film, or seize the original film themselves?)

Quote

It's ludicrous to claim that Brugioni would have had to make do with a copy because Life kept the original to work on stills for its magazine.

Why is it ludicrous for the Secret Service to use the good-quality copy which they possessed? It would be ludicrous for them not to use it, if the only better-quality version in existence was 600 miles (1000 km) away in Chicago.

Quote

Life publisher, CD Jackson, was himself a life long CIA asset. You think it's possible he would have rejected a request from Washington on national security grounds that he turn over the original ...?

Does Roger have evidence that any such request was made? As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to support Roger's speculative assumption.

Quote

Jackson's rep won the bid with the intention of turning the film over so top govt officials could, early on, see what happened, and, if necessary, try to control what information about the murder gets out.

Does Roger have any evidence to support this assertion? Or is he speculating again? Stolley acquired the print rights to the film on behalf of Life. If Roger can produce evidence to show that Stolley's intention was anything other than commercial, he should produce that evidence. If he can't, he should stop speculating.

Quote

CiA staff let CD Jackson at LIfe know that Johnson and McCone wanted briefing boards done at the NPIC as soon as feasible.

Perhaps Roger would be so kind as to produce the documentary evidence on which he based this claim. Or is this just another of Roger's evidence-free assertions? It's pure speculation again, isn't it?

Quote

The CIA flew the original film from Chicago to the NPIC in DC later on Saturday.

Again, where's the evidence to support this assertion? Pretty much all of Roger's claims seem to be pure speculation. Roger needs to stop making stuff up and start basing his case on the evidence that actually exists.

Quote

I make no statement about what copy of the film Life used to make the stills for its magazine. They had options.

In Roger's scenario, Life had no options at all. According to Roger, the original film and all three copies are accounted for, and none of them were available to Life:

1. The original went to NPIC in Washington, and then to Hawkeye Works in Rochester, NY, from where an altered 'original' made its way back to NPIC some time on the Sunday.
2. One first-day copy was flown from Dallas to the Secret Service in Washington overnight on the Friday, arriving early Saturday morning (in the real world, this copy must be the film Brugioni used at NPIC).
3. A second first-day copy was borrowed by the FBI and flown to FBI HQ in Washington late on the Saturday.
4. The third first-day copy remained in Dallas with Abraham Zapruder.

So which film did Life use that weekend?

While we're on the subject of copies, Roger's account will be incomplete until he explains how he thinks the Bad Guys managed to replace all the copies made from the authentic, unaltered film with copies based on a fake, altered film.

The authentic first-day copies were in various locations around the country over the weekend of the assassination and afterwards. There are reports that copies were being made from these copies shortly after that weekend. There are also reports that at least one copy was made from the original film in Chicago during that weekend.

Clearly, once all these unaltered copies and copies of copies proliferated beyond a certain point, it would have been impossible in practice to substitute all of them with altered copies. How and when might these substitutions have happened, given that the supposedly altered film wasn't available until late on the Sunday?