The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

Roger uses logical inferences in his argument and you keep saying that all he does is speculate. They are not the same thing.

I explained this in my previous comment. Roger's "logical inferences" may be consistent with his premises, but they are not the inevitable consequences of those premises. His conclusion does not follow logically from his premises.

His argument goes like this:

1. the CIA knew that Life possessed the original Zapruder film;
2. CD Jackson, the owner of Life, had links with the CIA;
3. it would have been simple for the CIA to ask Jackson to get hold of the film on their behalf;
4. therefore Jackson got hold of the film and gave it to the CIA, and the CIA took it to NPIC and altered it at Hawkeye Works. 

Items one to three of the argument are true, but item four does not follow. Roger would be justified in claiming that 'Jackson may have got hold of the film, and may have given it to the CIA, and the CIA may have taken it to NPIC and may have altered it at Hawkeye Works', but that isn't what he is claiming.

Unless he can produce sufficient actual evidence (or indeed any actual evidence!) that 'Jackson actually got hold of the film, and actually gave it to the CIA, and the CIA actually took it to NPIC and actually altered it at Hawkeye Works', his argument relies fundamentally on speculation.

There's also a preceding assumption, which would be item 0 in that list: the CIA wanted to possess the original Zapruder film. That's something that also requires actual evidence. In the absence of actual evidence, it's just more speculation. But Roger doesn't seem to have any interest in actual evidence.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

FWIW, I have been to a number of conferences in which this topic has been discussed, and have had many personal talks with people whose primary focus is on who did it, and the vast majority of "scholars" if you will believe the assassination and cover-up were separate acts.

Exactly! I really don't understand Roger's attitude to what is essentially the accepted version of events (among those who don't believe the 'Oswald did it all by himself' line, of course):

• The circumstances of the assassination (including the widely reported sounds of shots from the front) suggested a conspiracy of some sort.
• The personal history of the chosen patsy suggested that the assassination was an example of [cue spooky background music] the International Communist Conspiracy, a propaganda concept that was in wide circulation at the time.
• Politicians and bureaucrats feared not only pressure for retribution, leading to a new world war, but also public distrust of governmental institutions, and decided that blaming it on a lone nut was the best way to defuse both problems.
• The people who instigated the assassination designed it so that it would imply a communist conspiracy, and did so for any of several reasons: perhaps to provoke an invasion of Cuba or an attack on the Soviet Union, perhaps simply to prompt the politicians and bureaucrats into pursuing a lone-nut narrative. Whatever their precise motives, JFK would be out of the way and they themselves would avoid blame for the assassination.

As Jean pointed out a couple of pages ago, it's conceivable that one or more of the actual conspirators also played a role in the cover-up. Allen Dulles would be an obvious candidate here, steering his fellow Warren Commission members in the right direction. But any such involvement in the cover-up does not imply that the decision to officially promote the lone-nut interpretation was not made after the event by people unconnected to the assassination itself. Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust (University Press of Kansas, 2005) includes a good account of the development of the lone-nut idea within bureaucratic circles in Washington (warning: not suitable for anyone with an aversion to actual documentary evidence!).

Since the assassination was clearly not set up to imply that it was the work of a lone nut, those who instigated the assassination would have had no reason to seize the Zapruder film and alter it on the weekend of the assassination. As we have seen, there is no good evidence that the film ever went to the NPIC, let alone Hawkeye Works, that weekend.

[Roger Odisio]

On 7/13/2024 at 1:55 PM, Tom Gram said:

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.

McMahon thought he worked on the briefing boards that weekend because his work came before JFK's funeral on Monday.  Brugioni said he worked on boards on Saturday and McMahon, Hunter, and Sands were not there.

Here's the problem.  If you seriously pursue the idea that McMahon worked on the boards on Saturday, your argument that Brugioni can be discounted or even dismissed because he was an old man who misremembered some details, no longer suffices.  You have to be accusing him of lying.  About everything.

About the fact he did any boards at all.  About claiming he was ordered to get rid of his boards in 1975 when he mentioned to his then boss he still had a copy in his safe.  About claiming Art Lundahl came by early Sunday to take the finished boards to brief McCone. About what details he saw when he worked on the film, like the depiction of the head shots, that differs from the extant film.  About a lot of things.

Btw, can I assume you have let go of Jeremy's speculation, made fleetingly out of whole cloth, that maybe McMahon's boards were made in December rather than that weekend?

One thing jumped out at me from the links you posted:  there is "no record of any memo or any textual information provided to the Secret Service by the CIA after NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film".  In the course of arguing the film used by NPIC that weekend was the SS's copy, you asserted that the NPIC analysis was done for the SS.   Can we dispense with that too?

The boards were ordered by the top federal officials with the responsibility to investigate the murder (since there would be no trial once Oswald was murdered).  That wasn't the end of the story.  They acted accordingly based on what the boards showed about what happened.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

They acted accordingly based on what the boards showed about what happened.

And once again I ask, how could "they" possibly be sure that further film and photo evidence wouldn't emerge in the days following the assassination, which would naturally invalidate and expose the entire alteration of the Zapruder film in the first place?

[Roger Odisio]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

I explained this in my previous comment. Roger's "logical inferences" may be consistent with his premises, but they are not the inevitable consequences of those premises. His conclusion does not follow logically from his premises.

You have a problem with logic.  I never said the logical inferences I draw *from evidence* are inevitable consequences!  That's a strawman you invented.

But even if I had falsely claimed my inferences were inevitable consequences, showing that provides *no* basis to conclude that these inferences therefore do *not* logically flow from facts.  As you do here. That's called a nonsequitor.  The inferences I have cite do flow logically from facts that we know.

If you disagree you must explain why.  Something you have never been willing to do throughout this whole thread.  Instead you continuously hide behind your where is the CIA memo mantra.  So often repeated in answer to anything, in fact, I think the disingenuousness of such a request should now be clear to anyone .

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

His argument goes like this:

1. the CIA knew that Life possessed the original Zapruder film;
2. CD Jackson, the owner of Life, had links with the CIA;
3. it would have been simple for the CIA to ask Jackson to get hold of the film on their behalf;
4. therefore Jackson got hold of the film and gave it to the CIA, and the CIA took it to NPIC and altered it at Hawkeye Works. 

Items one to three of the argument are true, but item four does not follow. Roger would be justified in claiming that 'Jackson may have got hold of the film, and may have given it to the CIA, and the CIA may have taken it to NPIC and may have altered it at Hawkeye Works', but that isn't what he is claiming.

Jackson "got hold of" the original film when Life bought rights to it Saturday morning.  Only you would try to claim this is speculation that needs proof. 

It's a  fact that the federal officials, including the CIA, had a more compelling reason to use the film original than did Life.  Dispute that if you want. Stop calling it speculation.

That those officials wanted to transport the original film to the NPIC where they had ordered briefing boards to be made Saturday night is a logical inference from that fact.  Dispute that if you want.

That officials had reason to suspect the Z film contradicted their Oswald story (which it did), which they were already pushing (another fact), is a fact.

That the CIA had the means to transport the film to its NPIC lab is a fact.  Dispute that if you want, but while you're at it explain how anyone else but the CIA had access to either of its labs.

That Saturday the CIA had the opportunity to transport the film to its lab.  Dispute that if you want.

They had the reason, means, and opportunity to send the original film to their labs that Saturday.

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Unless he can produce sufficient actual evidence (or indeed any actual evidence!) that 'Jackson actually got hold of the film, and actually gave it to the CIA, and the CIA actually took it to NPIC and actually altered it at Hawkeye Works', his argument relies fundamentally on speculation.

This is just the usual transparently disingenuous blather you throw into every note to avoid responding to the substance presented to you.

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There's also a preceding assumption, which would be item 0 in that list: the CIA wanted to possess the original Zapruder film. That's something that also requires actual evidence. In the absence of actual evidence, it's just more speculation. But Roger doesn't seem to have any interest in actual evidence.

That the CIA, and indeed federal investigators, wanted to posses the original Z film in order to see what it showed because it contained crucial evidence of the murder, is an obvious fact.  It follows from a myriad of other facts we know. 

[Roger Odisio]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Pat Speer writes:

Exactly! I really don't understand Roger's attitude to what is essentially the accepted version of events (among those who don't believe the 'Oswald did it all by himself' line, of course):

• The circumstances of the assassination (including the widely reported sounds of shots from the front) suggested a conspiracy of some sort.
• The personal history of the chosen patsy suggested that the assassination was an example of [cue spooky background music] the International Communist Conspiracy, a propaganda concept that was in wide circulation at the time.
• Politicians and bureaucrats feared not only pressure for retribution, leading to a new world war, but also public distrust of governmental institutions, and decided that blaming it on a lone nut was the best way to defuse both problems.
• The people who instigated the assassination designed it so that it would imply a communist conspiracy, and did so for any of several reasons: perhaps to provoke an invasion of Cuba or an attack on the Soviet Union, perhaps simply to prompt the politicians and bureaucrats into pursuing a lone-nut narrative. Whatever their precise motives, JFK would be out of the way and they themselves would avoid blame for the assassination.

As Jean pointed out a couple of pages ago, it's conceivable that one or more of the actual conspirators also played a role in the cover-up. Allen Dulles would be an obvious candidate here, steering his fellow Warren Commission members in the right direction. But any such involvement in the cover-up does not imply that the decision to officially promote the lone-nut interpretation was not made after the event by people unconnected to the assassination itself. Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust (University Press of Kansas, 2005) includes a good account of the development of the lone-nut idea within bureaucratic circles in Washington (warning: not suitable for anyone with an aversion to actual documentary evidence!).

Since the assassination was clearly not set up to imply that it was the work of a lone nut, those who instigated the assassination would have had no reason to seize the Zapruder film and alter it on the weekend of the assassination. As we have seen, there is no good evidence that the film ever went to the NPIC, let alone Hawkeye Works, that weekend.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.  You don't seem to realize you have contradicted the central claim you have been making all along that the Z film was not altered.  That there was no reason to do that as you claim again here.  Instead you have explained what the reason was for altering the film!

Yes, we agree, the murder was not set up show it was done done by a lone nut.  As I said, the planners top priority was making sure they got JFK.  That required in their judgement multiple shooters from different directions.

Incredibly, you now use that fact to argue that therefore the planners would have had *no reason* to alter the Z film.  Which recorded what actually happened.  As they, (or this second group you claim ran the coverup; it doesn't matter) were pushing the official Oswald lone nut story!!  No reason to deal with the glaring discrepancy contained in the Z film!! 

You have given the precise reason why something had to be done with the Z film:  to deal with the glaring discrepancy between what the film showed actually happened and what their Oswald story claimed.

[Keven Hofeling]

ROLAND ZAVADA FLOATS A SANITIZED VERSION OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM BEING AT CIA HAWKEYEWORKS (ROCHESTER, NEW YORK) TO HARRISON LIVINGSTONE DURING THEIR MEETING OF MAY, 2004:

Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (pp. 121-124): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive.   https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183

Interestingly. Roland Zavada believes that the original film was at Kodak in Rochester shortly the assassination. Whether he actually knows more than he revealed to me during our meeting in May, 2004, I don't know, but he reverses the situation as you can read in the following dialog. A study of his language might also lead one to conclude that he is stating actual knowledge of what happened, but this is not clear to me.

Z: The situation is that one of the questions came up that is in the ARRB testimony that a Mr. Smith went to Kodak for the-

H: You're talking about the Secret Service man.

Z: Whatever it (sic) was. And that was, to the best of my knowledge, after the film had been sent to Washington. If that film being sent to Washington was in 8mm perforated width, and they wanted prints, and they did not know how to handle it on the Model J printer-

H: They had to go to Kodak-

Z: Kodak had a Model J printer modified so they could print the film which would have been the 5269 photo-

H: Kodak already had it modified before November 22nd?

Z: Because it was for wedding pictures, or the kid's pictures, or graduation pictures. Kodak provided this as a regular service that you could have gone to the drug store and asked for Kodachrome printing on Kodachrome 8mm film. That was a regular service-

H: You mean (still?) prints from a regular film?

Z: No, no, no! Movies! We're talking movie film! You've taken a movie of some important event in your life-it has now come back to you and you've projected it and you want a copy-what do you do? You go to your Kodak dealer and he sends it into Kodak; Kodak makes a copy.[18]

[18] Note that Kodak Dallas was not equipped to make copies of Double-eight film that they processed, and they had Zapruder take the just-processed film to the Jamieson lab where it could be done.

H: You mean in your city? In Rochester?

Z: It goes to Rochester. It could be any place in the United States, but it goes to Rochester to be printed, and it goes back to your photo finishing dealer to be given to you. A common service! [His tone is often almost pleading and this is true throughout much of the last exchanges. Maybe from fatigue, to put a polite spin on it.]

H: Okay, so this is film that was shot on eight, and not on double eight-

Z: Shot on double-eight but then slit to eight because that's the way you looked at it and projected it and you say "now I want a copy, so how do I get a copy that's already in eight?" We send it back to Kodak where they have a modified Model J printer-

H: In Rochester?

Z: In Rochester, and they print it on 5269. They process it, they slit it to eight and send you two back. One's the copy and one's the original. That's normal practice.

H: So what happened with NPIC?

Z: They needed a copy and the film was already 8mm, and they did not have the machinery to handle it. It would have gone to Kodak overnight-that it could (sic). We- Kodak provided services to government agencies based upon need. We never discriminated-

H: So you think that when the film was already at NPIC, they sent it up to Rochester?

Z: And then it came back!  It was a situation: went there, came back, and now they had a copy to work with, or copies. They might have made several copies, because Dallas was given a copy then [my emphasis]. Who made the copy for Dallas and what form was it on? I have never seen it, have you? If it was Ektachrome, it was easy for many laboratories. The biggest problem, Harry, in duplicating film at that time-just like at Jamieson: Jamieson's problem-the reason they couldn't take the film there and make a duplicate is he most likely had 5369 film available with perforated 16. So if he would have printed an 8mm film on it, the only thing you could have looked at it on is a 16mm projector with two frames of 8mm showing up on the screen at the same time. He would have had to get 8mm perforated film which probably was a special order. Because most laboratories didn't use that. There was no big need for that, except in audio-visual.

Melanson concludes his article in The Third Decade with these remarks:

If, as appears to be the case, it was the original of the Z-film that was secretly diverted to the CIA laboratory on November 22, 1963, then the means and the opportunity for sophisticated alteration did, in fact, exist-alteration that even the most expert analysis would have difficulty in detecting. By the 1960s cinematography labs had the technical capacity to insert or delete individual frames of a film, to resize images, to create special effects. But it would take an extraordinary sophistication to do so in a manner that would defy detection-the kind of sophistication that one would expect of CIA photo experts.

Between Zapruder and the Secret Service, they had possession of all three of the Dallas-made copies for nearly twenty-four hours. With the original at NPIC and with three copies made there, it is possible that if the film was doctored, the three NPIC copies of the doctored film were substituted for the three Dallas-made copies. "Or that all the copies went to NPIC" and the switch was made there ....

It is possible that the film of the century is more intimately related to the crime of the century than we ever knew-not because it recorded the crime of the century, as we have assumed, but because it was itself an instrument of conspiracy.

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Keven Hofeling

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

McMahon thought he worked on the briefing boards that weekend because his work came before JFK's funeral on Monday.  Brugioni said he worked on boards on Saturday and McMahon, Hunter, and Sands were not there.

Here's the problem.  If you seriously pursue the idea that McMahon worked on the boards on Saturday, your argument that Brugioni can be discounted or even dismissed because he was an old man who misremembered some details, no longer suffices.  You have to be accusing him of lying.  About everything.

About the fact he did any boards at all.  About claiming he was ordered to get rid of his boards in 1975 when he mentioned to his then boss he still had a copy in his safe.  About claiming Art Lundahl came by early Sunday to take the finished boards to brief McCone. About what details he saw when he worked on the film, like the depiction of the head shots, that differs from the extant film.  About a lot of things.

Btw, can I assume you have let go of Jeremy's speculation, made fleetingly out of whole cloth, that maybe McMahon's boards were made in December rather than that weekend?

One thing jumped out at me from the links you posted:  there is "no record of any memo or any textual information provided to the Secret Service by the CIA after NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film".  In the course of arguing the film used by NPIC that weekend was the SS's copy, you asserted that the NPIC analysis was done for the SS.   Can we dispense with that too?

The boards were ordered by the top federal officials with the responsibility to investigate the murder (since there would be no trial once Oswald was murdered).  That wasn't the end of the story.  They acted accordingly based on what the boards showed about what happened.

Just to be clear, I never accused Brugioni of lying. I also never said Brugioni could be “discounted”.

I did say that Brugioni’s 46-48 year old memory is not credible as a sole source, which is absolutely true. I focused on the issue of attendees, because according to Brugioni’s own statements, he didn’t remember at least 75% of the people who were there that night, including “3 or 4” people who were working in the color lab. 

The ONLY “evidence” that there were two independent briefing board events at NPIC is Brugioni’s failure to remember McMahon, Hunter, and Sands being there 46-48 years later. Well, who were the 3-4 unnamed people in the color lab? Wasn’t McMahon the head of the color lab? 

It looks like we don’t even have access to any of the several interviews Brugioni did with Janney and Horne. All we have are Horne’s superficial one-paragraph summaries from his book and the cut together finished product in the O’Sullivan film. It’s pretty hard to evaluate the credibility of a witness without knowing what they actually said on the record. Where are the tapes or transcripts of the uncut interviews? 

Based on what we do have, it looks like neither Horne nor Janney pressed Brugioni on his failure to remember 75% of the people at NPIC that night, which is ridiculous.

I now think the NPIC event most likely occurred on the 23rd. That doesn’t change the fact that Brugioni clearly didn’t remember the majority of people who were present at NPIC that night. Do you really think Brugioni could perfectly recall who wasn’t working in the lab that night but completely forget who actually was? 

If you want to make the case that the SS angle was just a cover, you’re on the right track at least by trying to use some actual evidence to support your argument. It’s not something that can just be “dispensed with”, however. 

During the Rockefeller Commission, it came out that the NPIC analysis was done on behalf of the Secret Service. One set of briefing boards was retained by McCone, and the other set went to the customer, the Secret Service. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=105096#relPageId=4

It looks like the CIA volunteered the NPIC event info to ROCKCOM in response to a memo from Paul Hoch asking if CIA had ever done anything with the Zapruder film. The CIA had already answered Hoch’s question by saying they had acquired a copy of the film from Life in 1965 for training purposes; the NPIC info was sent subsequently as an addendum. 

As you know, McMahon, Brugioni and Hunter each independently recalled the presence of SS agents at NPIC that night.

If it was such a sensitive topic, why would the CIA mention the NPIC event to ROCKCOM at all? They had already answered Hoch’s question. 

The CIA not having a record in 1975 of materials turned over to the Secret Service 12 years earlier doesn’t really tell us anything.

A better argument IMO is the apparent lack of Secret Service corroboration. If the SS really never commented on the NPIC event at all, you could argue that they didn’t want to admit to something they knew to be false. Were they ever asked about the NPIC analysis by the ARRB? 

According your theory, the CIA not only lied to ROCKCOM but sent undercover agents to their own facility and deceived their own employees into thinking they were doing work for the Secret Service. 

Do you think the CIA deliberately used SS cover because the SS had the only known copy of the Z-film in Washington on the 23rd or something? 

For the umpteenth time, I’m not looking for some smoking gun memo from the CIA. I’d just like to see an argument based on actual evidence vs. a bunch of assumptions and speculation. Just so we’re clear what I mean by the word “evidence”, here’s an excerpt from a legal article: 

Evidence, in this sense, is divided conventionally into three main categories:[4] oral evidence (the testimony given in court by witnesses), documentary evidence (documents produced for inspection by the court), and “real evidence”; the first two are self-explanatory and the third captures things other than documents such as a knife allegedly used in committing a crime.

The term “evidence” can, secondly, refer to a proposition of fact that is established by evidence in the first sense.[5] This is sometimes called an “evidential fact”. That the accused was at or about the scene of the crime at the relevant time is evidence in the second sense of his possible involvement in the crime. But the accused’s presence must be proved by producing evidence in the first sense. 

[Tom Gram]

39 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

ROLAND ZAVADA FLOATS A SANITIZED VERSION OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM BEING AT CIA HAWKEYEWORKS (ROCHESTER, NEW YORK) TO HARRISON LIVINGSTONE DURING THEIR MEETING OF MAY, 2004:

Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (pp. 121-124): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive.   https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183

Interestingly. Roland Zavada believes that the original film was at Kodak in Rochester shortly the assassination. Whether he actually knows more than he revealed to me during our meeting in May, 2004, I don't know, but he reverses the situation as you can read in the following dialog. A study of his language might also lead one to conclude that he is stating actual knowledge of what happened, but this is not clear to me.

Z: The situation is that one of the questions came up that is in the ARRB testimony that a Mr. Smith went to Kodak for the-

H: You're talking about the Secret Service man.

Z: Whatever it (sic) was. And that was, to the best of my knowledge, after the film had been sent to Washington. If that film being sent to Washington was in 8mm perforated width, and they wanted prints, and they did not know how to handle it on the Model J printer-

H: They had to go to Kodak-

Z: Kodak had a Model J printer modified so they could print the film which would have been the 5269 photo-

H: Kodak already had it modified before November 22nd?

Z: Because it was for wedding pictures, or the kid's pictures, or graduation pictures. Kodak provided this as a regular service that you could have gone to the drug store and asked for Kodachrome printing on Kodachrome 8mm film. That was a regular service-

H: You mean (still?) prints from a regular film?

Z: No, no, no! Movies! We're talking movie film! You've taken a movie of some important event in your life-it has now come back to you and you've projected it and you want a copy-what do you do? You go to your Kodak dealer and he sends it into Kodak; Kodak makes a copy.[18]

[18] Note that Kodak Dallas was not equipped to make copies of Double-eight film that they processed, and they had Zapruder take the just-processed film to the Jamieson lab where it could be done.

H: You mean in your city? In Rochester?

Z: It goes to Rochester. It could be any place in the United States, but it goes to Rochester to be printed, and it goes back to your photo finishing dealer to be given to you. A common service! [His tone is often almost pleading and this is true throughout much of the last exchanges. Maybe from fatigue, to put a polite spin on it.]

H: Okay, so this is film that was shot on eight, and not on double eight-

Z: Shot on double-eight but then slit to eight because that's the way you looked at it and projected it and you say "now I want a copy, so how do I get a copy that's already in eight?" We send it back to Kodak where they have a modified Model J printer-

H: In Rochester?

Z: In Rochester, and they print it on 5269. They process it, they slit it to eight and send you two back. One's the copy and one's the original. That's normal practice.

H: So what happened with NPIC?

Z: They needed a copy and the film was already 8mm, and they did not have the machinery to handle it. It would have gone to Kodak overnight-that it could (sic). We- Kodak provided services to government agencies based upon need. We never discriminated-

H: So you think that when the film was already at NPIC, they sent it up to Rochester?

Z: And then it came back!  It was a situation: went there, came back, and now they had a copy to work with, or copies. They might have made several copies, because Dallas was given a copy then [my emphasis]. Who made the copy for Dallas and what form was it on? I have never seen it, have you? If it was Ektachrome, it was easy for many laboratories. The biggest problem, Harry, in duplicating film at that time-just like at Jamieson: Jamieson's problem-the reason they couldn't take the film there and make a duplicate is he most likely had 5369 film available with perforated 16. So if he would have printed an 8mm film on it, the only thing you could have looked at it on is a 16mm projector with two frames of 8mm showing up on the screen at the same time. He would have had to get 8mm perforated film which probably was a special order. Because most laboratories didn't use that. There was no big need for that, except in audio-visual.

Melanson concludes his article in The Third Decade with these remarks:

If, as appears to be the case, it was the original of the Z-film that was secretly diverted to the CIA laboratory on November 22, 1963, then the means and the opportunity for sophisticated alteration did, in fact, exist-alteration that even the most expert analysis would have difficulty in detecting. By the 1960s cinematography labs had the technical capacity to insert or delete individual frames of a film, to resize images, to create special effects. But it would take an extraordinary sophistication to do so in a manner that would defy detection-the kind of sophistication that one would expect of CIA photo experts.

Between Zapruder and the Secret Service, they had possession of all three of the Dallas-made copies for nearly twenty-four hours. With the original at NPIC and with three copies made there, it is possible that if the film was doctored, the three NPIC copies of the doctored film were substituted for the three Dallas-made copies. "Or that all the copies went to NPIC" and the switch was made there ....

It is possible that the film of the century is more intimately related to the crime of the century than we ever knew-not because it recorded the crime of the century, as we have assumed, but because it was itself an instrument of conspiracy.

 

You realize Zavada is talking about making a copy from slit 8mm film, right, specifically the 8mm Secret Service copy that was sent to Washington? 

He’s speculating that if McMahon’s 34 year old hearsay from “Bill Smith” was accurate - which again is the ONLY evidence any copy of the Z-film ever went to Rochester at all - it is possible the SS sent their copy to Rochester to make 2nd gen copies. 

Not exactly conspiratorial. 

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy Larsen said:

Roger uses logical inferences in his argument and you keep saying that all he does is speculate. They are not the same thing.

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I explained this in my previous comment. Roger's "logical inferences" may be consistent with his premises, but they are not the inevitable consequences of those premises.

 

We all know that. Roger knows that. That is what makes Roger's narrative a theory rather than a fact.

Problem is, even after Roger points out that certain of his statements are inferences, you don't acknowledge so but rather continued calling them mere speculation.

Having said that, I understand that debaters usually use the word speculation even when the word inference would be more appropriate. And I think that there are instances when its hard to distinguish between the two.

It would be helpful if Roger would use adjectives to signify which parts of his narrative are not known to be factual. On the other hand, I certainly understand that people often lay out their theory as though the whole thing were factual. Doing the latter in a debate with a worthy opponent is okay because his opponent will call him on it, and so the audience will be told what is mere speculation.

 

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

[Roger's] conclusion does not follow logically from his premises.

His argument goes like this:

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

1. the CIA knew that Life possessed the original Zapruder film;
2. CD Jackson, the owner of Life, had links with the CIA;
3. it would have been simple for the CIA to ask Jackson to get hold of the film on their behalf;
4. therefore Jackson got hold of the film and gave it to the CIA, and the CIA took it to NPIC and altered it at Hawkeye Works. 

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Items one to three of the argument are true, but item four does not follow. Roger would be justified in claiming that 'Jackson may have got hold of the film, and may have given it to the CIA, and the CIA may have taken it to NPIC and may have altered it at Hawkeye Works', but that isn't what he is claiming.

Unless he can produce sufficient actual evidence (or indeed any actual evidence!) that 'Jackson actually got hold of the film, and actually gave it to the CIA, and the CIA actually took it to NPIC and actually altered it at Hawkeye Works', his argument relies fundamentally on speculation.

 

Your #4 is Roger's part of his theory that is a logical inference, which again you refer to as speculation.

There is good reason for Roger to point out that that is an inference and not mere speculation, the good reason being that inference has greater probative value. I suspect that, as Roger's opponent, you choose to call it speculation in an attempt to dismiss it. But Roger is right on this and you are wrong.

BTW, I believe that you left out some evidence for #4. I don't think that Hawkeye Works came out of nowhere.

 

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There's also a preceding assumption, which would be item 0 in that list: the CIA wanted to possess the original Zapruder film. That's something that also requires actual evidence. In the absence of actual evidence, it's just more speculation. But Roger doesn't seem to have any interest in actual evidence.

 

Why do you say that? Is it your understanding that Roger would say his narrative is a fact and not a theory?

I myself recall Roger saying that there are inferences in his narrative. Which is the same as his saying that it is a theory.

So Roger does indeed say it is a theory. And here you are complaining that his theory isn't 100% factual.

Do you insist that all theories be 100% factual... or be ignored otherwise? Or are you this way only with Roger's theory?

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Sandy Larsen

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Just to be clear, I never accused Brugioni of lying. I also never said Brugioni could be “discounted”.

I know you hadn't accused Brugioni of lying.  You have said what you're saying again here--Brugioni's age and memory mean he is not a credible source.  But that's a general statement that lacks specifics that the reader needs to judge its accuracy.  Brugioni provided a lot for information about that weekend.  Is any of it credible to you? For what exactly is he not a credible source?

Let's start with the basics. On Saturday, CIA director John McCone contacted Art Lundahl, head of NPIC, and ordered him to do briefing boards for him, not the SS, using the Z film.

Brugioni was NPIC's preeminent photo analyst.  A year earlier he had worked on the pictures of the missiles in Cuba that led to the missile crisis.  He later wrote a book about that, Eyeball to Eyeball.  Another of his books: Photo Fakery, a history.

He was the natural choice to do the boards and Lundahl asked him to head up a crew.

Brugioni knew both McMahon and Sands.  Hunter was a new employee.  He had been there about 2 weeks.

Brugioni did *not* misremember whether McMahon and Sands were there with him Saturday night. He was not unclear about that.  Horne asked him directly whether either man was there.  He said no. 

When Horne showed him the briefing boards and accompanying notes now at NARA, he said that was not his work.  His boards were configured differently; he wrote different notes. That establishes that there were indeed two different sets of boards done at NPIC that a weekend.

Unless Brugioni was lying.  Can you make that case?  It seems you have to in order to claim only one set of boards was done.

Brugioni said when the boards he worked on were finished early Sunday morning Lundahl came by and took them to brief McCone.  McCone then used them to brief Johnson.  That's who the boards were made for, not the SS.  Can you make the case that that's wrong; he was lying about that too?  That the boards were, for some reason, made for the SS as you.re now claiming, not the federal officials investigating the murder? 

Here is your counterclaim:  "During the Rockefeller Commission, it came out that the NPIC analysis was done on behalf of the Secret Service. One set of briefing boards was retained by McCone, and the other set went to the customer, the Secret Service." 

I don't know if at some point the SS got a copy of the boards.  It doesn't matter.  It was the top federal officials who were responsible for investigating the murder who ordered the boards and who were briefed using them.  Unless Brugioni is lying about that.

There comes a point when a person has offered so much detail, and I've only mention some of it from Brugioni, that it is no longer possible to claim "misremembering". 

I'm surprised you still think the fact that *both* couriers who delivered the film to NPIC said they worked for SS means anything.  Neither Brugioni nor McMahon had a need to know anything beyond what the task was they were supposed to perform.  McMahon said "Bill Smith" never even used the words Zapruder film to him.  The claim that the couriers were SS agents was the CIA's boilerplate compartmentalization.

It fit with the cover story, believed for decades, that original film went only to Life in Chicago to make stills for their magazine.  Made plausible by the fact that the SS had a copy right there in DC that could have been used for the boards.  Plausible, that is, as long as you didn't start thinking about why the federal investigators, who had a much more important use for the film original than Life, wouldn't have wanted to use the original for their purposes.  National security.  

Btw, are you or Jeremy ever going to discuss the point about resolving the different uses for the original film,  instead of asking where is the CIA memo that shows the point ever came up.

Janney did 6-8 interviews with Brugioni, that I don't think were recorded, before telling Horne about what Brugioni said.  Horne recorded several Brugioni interviews.  Here is a basic one.  Do I understand you to say you haven't seen this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QIuu6hsA 

My point is, and was, if you pursue your present view that McMahon did his boards on Saturday with the idea that Brugioni was there too (or even if he wasn't), and only one set of boards was done that weekend, you are inevitably going to have to claim the Bruigioni was lying.  Not about a few details but virtually everything important.

Btw, we're not in a courtroom.  I have previously posted the dictionary definition of evidence applicable here (you may have missed it):  "data on which a judgement or conclusion may be based, or by which proof or probability may be established". 

*All* such information can be evidence.  You'll notice the absence of "documentary" as a modifier.  Repeatedly calling for documentary evidence was your illegitimate way to shrink what you would accept to counter your claims, and expand what you could call "speculation".  More than once you and Jeremy  claimed everything I said was speculation. 

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 7/13/2024 at 9:19 AM, Chris Davidson said:

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.

 

 

The comedy shop in Dallas.

The quote at the bottom is from Phil Chamberlain

[Chris Davidson]

[Chris Davidson]

[Chris Davidson]