The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

I can give two possible ways that could have happened.

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

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

Edited 6 hours ago by Jeremy Bojczuk
Changed a 'that' to a 'which', for clarity

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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

Surely there is and surely they were:

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

What you see is not what you're getting.

 

 

[Tom Gram]

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

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

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

day after 

23 Nov. ‘63. 

_______________

several days

after

assassination 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Pat Speer

[Roger Odisio]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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