The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Kevin Balch]

8 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

@Kevin Balch and Mr. Bojczuk are here essentially repeating the speculation of Kodak chemist Roland Zavada -- who conducted the ARRB's Zapruder film study -- that the differences in density between the alleged three first day copies of the Zapruder film are the result of "bracketing," a term which denotes a contact printer procedure by which multiple exposures of a film are made at different exposure settings to allow a customer to select the best copy from multiple choices.

In the context of the ARRB Zapruder film study, Zavada's speculation to this effect had been influenced by the observation of differences in density between the two first day Secret Service copies of the Zapruder film, and then in December of 1999, the LMH Company (the Time-Life shell corporation with ownership of LIFE's Zapruder film materials) allowed Zavada to inspect the third first day copy that had been purchased by LIFE in 1963, leading Zavada to conclude as follows in his February 2000 Addendum to his Zapruder film study:

A side-by-side evaluation was made matching adjacent scene images of Secret Service Copy No. 1 and No. 2 and LMH Co. item No. 2 [the third first day copy]. All three films had different densities, with the LMH Co. copy in-between the two Secret Service copies.

A good color version of Zavada's comparison of the film densities from his supplemental report is reproduced in Harrison Livingstone's Hoax of the Century:

Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (p. 139): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive.   https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183

Although Livingstone believed there were other adequate explanations for the differences in density between the first day copies, critics such as Doug Horne agree with Zavada's analysis that the differences in density support Zavada's conclusion that bracketing was employed during the contact printing of the three copies. What Horne disputes, however, is that the three first day copies compared by Zavada are in fact the original first day copies, an assertion Horne supports with the earliest statements of Bruce Jamieson, the owner of the Jamieson Film Company, which performed the contact printing of the three first copies the evening of the assassination.

Horne cites Bruce Jamieson's letter to Harrison Livingstone dated February 4, 1998, as reproduced in Livingstone's Hoax of the Century:

Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (pp.265-266): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive.    https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183

At the bottom half of page 266 of Livingstone's Hoax of the Century (above), we see that by the time of Bruce Jamieson's correspondence to Harry Livingstone dated May 26, 1999, he had underwent a change of opinion resulting in him by then embracing Zavada's bracketing hypothesis, which was the result of a lobbying process carried out by Zavada, which Doug Horne sees as a big problem, as detailed by Horne as follows:

"...The problem is-and it is a BIG PROBLEM as it pertains to the authenticity of the 'first generation' copies-Bruce Jamieson initially told Rollie Zavada-once orally and twice, in writing-that his company had not bracketed the three duplicate exposures run off the day of the assassination for Mr. Zapruder from the unslit camera original film. Just as he had in regard to the issue of whether the aperture on the contact printer was 'picture only' or 'picture plus soundtrack' (i.e., 'full frame'), Rollie Zavada persuaded Bruce Jamieson, after the fact, to essentially change his mind about what procedures had been followed at his lab the day of the assassination, based solely upon Zavada's observation of density differences in the 'first generation' copies in evidence today. And once again, Bruce Jamieson appeared to be more than willing to 'change history' to accommodate the desires of his questioner. But these changes of mind by Jamieson are not good oral history procedure, and are certainly not the proper way to conduct an impartial investigation of authenticity.

In two different letters to Rollie Zavada in 1997, which I will quote below, Jamieson expressed the opinion that his employees did not bracket the original Zapruder film when it was duplicated on November 22, 1963. He was in a direct position to know, because he took the phone call from the Kodak lab expert (Mr. Erwin "Pat" Pattist) the day of the assassination, in which the problems involved in duplicating a Kodachrome II daylight film, using Kodachrome IIA tungsten balanced film stock, were discussed. Jamieson and his film printer then personally agreed on the best exposure (singular-not plural) to use when duplicating the film. In 1996 Zavada wrote this in his December 19^th letter to the ARRB, after making his first telephonic contact with Bruce Jamieson: "...he and his printer estimated the best printer light and filter pack. (Note: Kodachrome IIA was balanced for 3400 degrees Kelvin whereas typical print stock is balanced for 3200 degrees Kelvin.)" The point here is that Jamieson was directly involved in the discussion of the criteria and procedures to be used in duplicating Zapruder's original movie, and anything he would subsequently recall about the event would therefore carry more weight than what he had to say about the printing aperture, which was really Jamieson taking Robert Colley at his word.

The following excerpts from correspondence between Zavada and Jamieson are reproduced from the Appendix to the Zavada report. I am very glad, at this juncture, that the ARRB staff (namely, Jeremy Gunn and I) required Rollie Zavada to publish all correspondence between himself and either the ARRB or his witnesses, in the interests of transparency-for this correspondence (once again) reveals Bruce Jamieson's original recollections about a crucial matter in evidence, and the subsequent modifications he made to his memory to accommodate Zavada's viewpoints.

In a letter from Rollie Zavada to Bruce Jamieson of October 8, 1997, Zavada documented in writing that Jamieson had told him orally in a telephone conversation that the three dupes his company ran off were not bracketed:

In our telephone conversation on Sept. 25, I asked about the printer used for printing the Zapruder double 8 mm original onto Kodachrome 11A supplied by the Kodak Dallas Processing Lab. You indicated you printed all three copies with the same filter pack and light. [author's emphasis]

Then, on October 21, 1997, Jamieson wrote Rollie Zavada a long letter about many technical issues, in which he said:

Earlier you had mentioned to me that of the three prints you have seen [referring here to the extant Zapruder film and the two Secret Service copies], one was significantly over-exposed, differing from the other two. [See Figure 3-11 on page 22 of Study 3 of the Zavada report; and page 140 of Livingstone.] It is possible that some inadvertent light change could have been made between printing passes, but I really doubt that any intentional change was made. The basic filter pack and exposure index for printing onto Kodachrome stock was arrived at by joint discussion between our people and Kodak personnel, and I don't think any variation between prints was contemplated.  [author's emphasis]

This answer must not have pleased Rollie Zavada, for in his next reply Jamieson both reconfirms his original position that there was no bracketing, but also reveals an apparent ambivalence about what actually happened. In a letter to Rollie Zavada dated November 20, 1997, Jamieson wrote:

Now a further comment regarding the print you observed to be much different [clearly, Secret Service copy no. 2] (over-exposed?) from the others. I have previously noted my doubt that there was any difference in the three prints we made, but it's always possible. [author's emphasis]

Alarmingly, on April 21, 1998, Jamieson wrote back to Rollie Zavada after the two had conducted extended telephonic exchanges about the question of 'bracketing,' and by this time Jamieson was willing to give Zavada what he wanted in the form of a hypothetical scenario (which departed significantly from Jamieson's original position, which was that bracketing had not occurred):

You have previously postulated that the varying exposures of the two Secret Service prints might be indicative of an attempt to bracket optimum exposure since conversion of the film speed of the Type A Kodachrome II to our normal print film was somewhat in question. / can rationalize this in the following manner. When Pat Pattist and I spoke on the phone in setting up the plan to print un-slit double 8 mm, the subject of exposure came up, and Pat offered some information in guiding us, which was passed on to our lab people. When Mr. Zapruder and the Secret Service arrived,[17] his principal concern was the security of his own film and protection of its exclusivity. That is why he insisted in accompanying the printer operator into the darkroom while the prints were being made. It is also obvious that he was already considering the value and marketability of his film because of previously putting the camera in his safe, and subsequently his action the next day of setting a schedule for a one­ time screening after which each media representative would make their best offer for exclusive rights. Obviously he would want the best possible print for that purpose, and this would be his only opportunity to obtain a timely print, so when questions arose about optimum exposure, he very likely insisted on bracketing the selected exposure with the three prints. He then took the best print for his own use, and turned over the other two to the Secret Service. I can't prove the foregoing hypothesis but it certainly makes sense to me as the onlv logical explanation for the wide exposure difference in the two archived prints. It certainly wasn't accidental. [author's emphasis]

[17]. lt is my belief that the personnel at the Jamieson lab confused Zapruder's business confusion by misrepresenting who Schwartz really was in order to gain leverage over the technicians in the Jamieson lab.) The best reconstruction of events available to us today indicates that Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels departed the Kodak lab before the developing of the original film was completed, and never went to the Jamieson lab.

Well! This obliging hypothesis offered up by Bruce Jamieson, after being beaten down by Rollie Zavada over the 'bracketing' issue for almost 7 months, is certainly NOT "the only logical explanation" for the apparent bracketing seen in the two Secret Service copies (and later confirmed in December of 1999 at the Archives). The other logical explanation, of course, is that the Jamieson film Jab never did bracket the duplicates, and that the 'first generation' copies we have today are not the copies made by the Jamieson lab on the day of the assassination! Of course, neither Rollie Zavada nor Bruce Jamieson was willing to acknowledge that other logical possibility. If they did not think that likely, then that was certainly their prerogative, but Zavada should have at least acknowledged the possibility of substituted 'first generation' copies in his report. That he did not do so is another indicator of the extent to which Rollie was determined to conclude that both the extant film and the 'first generation' copies were authentic films, no matter what the evidence showed.

If the 'bracketing' issue were the only discrepancy involving the Zapruder film-if we did not have other problems such as the major chain-of-custodydiscrepancy indicating that a new unslit 'original' was created at Rochester on Sunday; and the discrepancy about what the 3 duplicates should look like in the intersprocket area (due to the controversy over 'full frame' printing aperture vs 'picture only'); and the discrepancy over whether or not the processing edge printer lights were turned off when the original film was developed; and the discrepancy over whether the original film was slit before Zapruder left the Kodak lab at 9 PM on Friday, or left unslit-then I might be willing to adopt the generous mind set of a Bruce Jamieson and doubt my own recollections to the point where I would be willing to construct a 'hypothesis' that contradicted everything I had previously said about 'bracketing' of the duplicate films, simply because the films in evidence contradicted my best recollections from the day of the assassination. But this is not a normal situation involving a normal film; it is the John F. Kennedy assassination, in which almost every aspect and item of evidence appears to be either taintedy and/or in conflict with other key evidence. The Kennedy assassination was not solved in 1963 by assuming that 'all things were equal' with other murder cases and that all of the evidence could be trusted; and continuing attempts since 1963 to solve the assassination by assuming that the physical evidence is untainted, and trustworthy, have resulted in the case becoming literally insoluble, since the more we study a field of physical evidence that is clearly untrustworthy, the more problematic the evidence becomes, and the more we realize that the evidence in this case simply "does not come together," as Josiah Thompson has so aptly put it. Given all of the other apparent problems with the Zapruder film evidence in particular, the obliging hypothesis that Bruce Jamieson spun for Rollie Zavada's benefit-after clearly having been coached by Zavada-is simply not worthy of belief. Let me explain why. After meticulously and deliberately arriving at a joint decision with his printer operator about which filter pack and exposure to use when making the three duplicates, surely-if Zapruder had insisted upon bracketing his exposures while in the printing room with Marshall Collier-the printer operator would have said, "time out," and would have consulted with Bruce Jamieson first about how to conduct this hypothetical bracketing of such an important film. Everyone knew that the subject matter was the assassination of President Kennedy, and no single employee would have wanted to be responsible for screwing up the job of duplicating the film. In the case of such a unique situation-the use of indoor Kodachrome IIA film for a duplicating role for which it was not intended-surely, Collier would have consulted with his boss and the owner of the lab in which he worked, before bracketing the exposures of the duplicates. (After all, deciding upon which filter pack to use and what exposure was appropriate was tricky enough already that Kodak had already consulted with Jamieson directly over the matter.) The fact that Jamieson, who initially recalled that bracketing was not done, also recalled no such additional consultation with his printer operator after Zapruder entered the printing room, is persuasive evidence to me that bracketing did not take place.

And yet Zavada concluded otherwise, even in his final report produced in September of 1998, before he had a chance to examine the LMH copy. He was enamored with the hypothesis offered up by Bruce Jamieson. It is no wonder that he was, considering that he surely planted that hypothesis in Bruce Jamieson's mind. In Study 3 of the Zavada report, Rollie wrote (on page 20 of Study 3):

The difference in density [between Secret Service copy no. 1 and no. 2] is significant-more than one would expect from a printer operator trying to 'bracket' a presumed correct exposure. However, it is possible that three different light levels were chosen-and that the copies agent Sorrels received were the [sic] bracketed high and low and that Time-Life received the nominal. [emphasis in original]

Zavada then reported, and endorsed, the 'Jamieson' hypothesis in full on the next page:

The density difference issue is perplexing and has been discussed with Bruce Jamieson, Motion Picture Laboratory management and printing personnel. Trying to place ourselves in the position of the Jamieson Film Company in 1963, we hypothesized the following:

a.   They were faced with a significant time constraint-essentiallyimmediate. This constraint precluded scene testing of the original to assess the ideal print density and filter pack.

b.  The lab did not have 8 mm perforated print stock on hand to permit using familiar materials. This mandated the use of 8 mm Type A camera film as a print material (supplied by Kodak). The type A camera film is both faster (ASA 40) and balanced for a higher color temperature (3400 degrees Kelvin) than a typical print stock having a slower speed and a lower (neutral aim balance) color temperature of about 2800 degrees Kelvin.

c. The lab consulted with Erwin 'Pat' Pattist, Quality Control Supervisor of the Kodak Dallas Processing Laboratory, (possibly) togain his assurance that the process was 'in control' and his opinion about the selection of filter pack and printer light.

d. Handling of the films was complicated because Mr. Zapruder was present in the printing room while his original was being copied.

Scenario 1 - lf Mr. Zapruder had requested three 'good' copies of his original, the prudent approach would be to print 'one light,' i.e., all three prints with the (same) best choice of filter pack and printer light setting. If this scenario was followed, Secret Service copy 1 and Secret Service copy 2 should be a close match.

Scenario 2 - lf Mr. Zapruder had requested  'good' copy of his original, and provided three customer Type A film rolls for print stock to achieve this objective, a printer 'light­ bracketing' approach could have been considered. The procedure would be to select an aim printing light level for the first print and then possibly expose a half stop over and under for the second and third prints while maintaining the chosen filter pack. This scenario could be the basis of the density differences seen, especially if the LIFE magazine copy density falls in-between the two Secret Service copies, and would be my personal best guess of what happened. [emphasis in original]

In his February 2000 Addendum, Zavada continued with his biased, one-way interpretation of the evidence by writing on page 9:

The hypothesis that the Jamieson Film Company bracketed the printing exposure level to achieve an ideal 'good' copy from the three camera film spools of Kodachrome IIA provided by Kodak proved correct. This also confirmed our belief that Mr. A. Zapruder retained the best copy and provided the Secret Service the bracketed higher and lower density copies.

I can just as easily compose the alternate scenario for what the bracketing could mean, and will do so now:

The three 'first generation' copies in evidence today are indeed 'bracketed.' But since Mr. Bruce Jamieson's initial strong recollection was that his laboratory personnel did not bracket the three duplicates that they ran off in their Bell and Howell Model J contact printer, we can conclude that the three bracketed duplicates we have in evidence today are not the 'first day copies' made from the camera original film on the day of the assassination,and are instead substitute duplicates made from an altered 'original' and substituted for the three true first day copies' sometime after the weekend following the assassination.

In other words, the presence of'bracketing' in the three extant 'first generation' copies is additional dispositive evidence that indirectly proves an altered 'original' film was created the weekend of the assassination (on Sunday, in Rochester at the "Hawkeye Plant"), and that substitute duplicates were then struck from this altered 'original.' The altered 'original' and the best quality print of the three bracketed duplicates would likely have gone directly to LIFE magazine on Monday, November 25th and the true 'first day copies' in the hands of: (I) the FBI in Washington; (2) the Secret Service in Washington; and (3) in the custody of Abraham Zapruder in Dallas, would have been collected and removed from circulation no later than the close of business Monday, November 25, 1963. Zapruder would simply have relinquished his own authentic 'first day copy' to Richard Stolley Monday afternoon after his contract was renegotiated, and Stolley would have forwarded it to LIFE, where the switch with its substitute duplicate could have been made in quiet by C.D. Jackson. In my view Rollie Zavada is incorrect when he wrote that Zapruder kept the best bracketed copy for himself. In reality I don't believe Abraham Zapruder ever saw the bracketed, substitute 'first generation' copy that later became known as 'LMH copy no. 2; I believe that Zapruder's heirs received this item from LIFE only in April of 1975 (five years after Zapruder's death in 1970), when Time, Inc. 'sold' the whole kit and caboodle back to the LMH Company for one dollar. I believe the Secret Service 'first day copy' in Washington, D. C., and the other 'first day copy' which was temporarily in the hands of FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., were both swapped out first thing Monday morning, November 25^th. This would have allowed the FBI all day long on Monday to run off its substandard 'second generation' prints from the substitute 'first generation' copy given to them (with their full cooperation) on Monday morning, November 25th. By Monday evening, all of the true 'first day copies,' as well as the true camera original film, were likely removed from official circulation, and all of the key films we know of today were probably in place.

Most likely, either the true camera original film, or the true 'first day copies' (or perhaps all of them) were not immediately destroyed, and remained in private hands, resulting in the various accounts over the years that different people have seen (or owned) a different version of the Zapruder film than exists in the public domain today.

Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1267-1272).

And on what basis, you might ask, did Bruce Jamieson originally assert that the first day copies of the Zapruder film had not been bracketed? On the basis of Jamieson Film Company printer operator Robert Colley's recollections of the work performed. Doug Horne wrote:

"...I reviewed the Appendices to the Zavada report to look for the correspondence in which Bruce Jamieson changed his mind about how the aperture was set on his contact printer the day of the assassination. In a letter to Zavada dated October 21, 1997 (before he wrote to Harry Livingstone), Jamieson wrote:

I am advised by Mr. Robert Colley, who was a printer operator in our lab at that time, and who was in-and-out of the next printing room with our 3-head release printer at the time the Zapruder prints were made. He confirms that the Zapruder film was printed on a B&H Model J printer (not the 3-head printer as I originally believed). He further reminds me that our normal procedure was...the B-wind originals were printed FULL APERATURE [sic] (pix and sound area) from TAILS [meaning, starting with the tail end of the film on the supply reel]. Mr. Colley believes that this was the procedure used in printing the Zapruder film.

By April 21, 1998, Zavada had clearly persuaded Jamieson that Robert Colley must have been incorrect about the 'full aperture' (pix plus sound area) printing setup, by using the present day appearance of the 'first generation' copies to get Jamieson to doubt Robert Colley's recollections, because in a letter of that date published in the Appendix of the Zavada report, Jamieson wrote:

Next, the aperture setting on the printer was certainly in the 'picture only' position as evidenced by the unexposed section from picture frame edge to the film edge on the motorcade section of film. Both SS prints show that characteristic... [emphasis in original]

Clearly, Zavada has gotten Jamieson to flip-flop on what was previously his best professional opinion about what had happened in 1963 by showing him what was in the official record in 1997 and by then getting him to modify his position-his best professional opinion as expressed to both Rollie in October of 1997 and then to Harry Livingstone in February of 1998-that the copies his lab printed were made at 'full frame' or 'picture plus soundtrack' aperture. This is not the proper way to conduct an investigation into authenticity. The details about techniques employed-as recalled independently by qualified, expert eyewitnesses-are crucially important to studies of authenticity. This is why Jeremy Gunn asked John Stringer about the procedures employed and type of film used to photograph President Kennedy's brain before he showed him the photographs-because all too many witnesses are willing to change their opinions and recollections to either please the person asking the question, or to conform to the evidence placed before them. Bruce Jamieson's original answers given to Rollie Zavada in October of 1997 and to Harry Livingstone in February of 1998 (about what aperture was used on his printer when copying Zapruder's camera original film) should not be any more subject to change than John Stringer's initial answers given about the procedures used to photograph President Kennedy's brain, or about the type of film he used to do it. The ARRB did not ask John Stringer to reassess his best recollection of how he shot the brain photographs, and about what kind of film he used, just because his recollections differed from the photographs in the Archives. Rollie Zavada demonstrated here a tendency to 'jawbone' his witnesses into changing their testimony until their testimony fit his preconceived assumptions about the authenticity of the films he was examining. He did the same thing to Bruce Jamieson over the 'bracketing' issue, as I will reveal later in this subsection.

In summary, if Robert Colley's firm recollection-fully endorsed in writing, in October of 1997 by Bruce Jamieson and then expressed again as his own opinion, in writing, in February of 1998-that the camera original Zapruder film was copied with the B&H Model J printer set on 'full frame' (i.e., picture plus soundtrack) aperture JS CORRECT, then the 'first day copies' made on November 22, 1963 must have displayed the same intersprocket images recorded on the original film that day. Since the 'first generation' copies in the record today do not show the same type of full intersprocket penetration seen in the extant Ji.Im, the absence of such full-penetration intersprocket images on the motorcade portions of these films constitutes dispositive evidence proving that the 3 films represented as 'first generation ' copies today cannot be the 'first day copies ' duplicated at the Jamieson film lab on November 22, 1963. The implication here is that after a new 'original' (with 'full flush left' intersprocket penetration in every frame) was created at Rochester (at the "Hawkeye Plant"), three new 'first generation' copies were duplicated on a contact printer at Rochester, but the aperture was mistakenly set at 'picture only,' and not at 'picture plus soundtrack.' Under my working hypothesis, the technicians at the "Hawkeye Plant" would not have been aware of their error because they did not have in their possession any of the true 'first day copies' to examine before they made the three new substitute contact prints. On Sunday, November 24^th when the three substitute copies were struck at the "Hawkeye Plant," one true 'first day copy' was in the hands of the FBI in Washington, D.C. (having been loaned to the FBI by the Secret Service in Dallas on Saturday); another was in the hands of the Secret Service in Washington, D.C. (having been flown there late

Friday night from Dallas and having arrived early Saturday morning); and the third was still in the hands of Abraham Zapruder until Monday, November 251\  when his sale contract with Time,

Inc. was renegotiated for an additional$ 100,000.00. In fact, it was his 'first day copy' that Dan Rather viewed on Monday, according to author Richard Trask (and as later agreed to by Dan Rather himself). The Kodak technicians at the CIA's Hawkeye Plant could not have known it, but they inadvertently left indirect evidence pointing to the forgery of a new 'original' film when they impropetly replicated the three substitute 'first generation' copies using different procedures than those that had been employed by the staff at the Jamieson film lab in Dallas.

Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1258-1259).

Thus, we have the earliest stated recollections of the film laboratory owner, Bruce Jamieson, and of the Jamieson Film Company printer operator, Robert Colley, attesting that the bracketing procedure was not employed during the contact printing of the three first day copies, and these accounts are by far the most probative and enjoy the greatest evidentiary weight out of all of the evidence involved in the consideration of the bracketing issue. Instead of proceeding upon the basis of that best evidence, Rollie Zavada followed his confirmation bias-based impulses and lobbied Bruce Jamieson to change his testimony, thereby revealing his flawed methodologies as an investigator, and placing in question all of Zavada's conclusions.

Dr. David Mantik, writing in 2000, expanded upon Horne's analysis of the bracketing question, and addressed associated issues involving septum line inconsistencies in the first day Zapruder film copies which Zavada had conceded he was unable to reproduce:

ADDENDUM: LMH "FIRST DAY COPY"

In 1999, Roland J. Zavada examined the LMH Co. "First Day Copy" (hereafter described as LMHFDC) and published a report: "Addendum to Technical Report #318420P: Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence." In this report Zavada claims that the third copy made by Jamieson on 22 November 1963 is the LMH copy (also known as the Life copy). In an unrelated matter, but still one of great interest, Zavada also reports (letter to Douglas P. Horne, 14 March 2000) that the Zapruder family transferred their copyright and complete inventory of films to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. Zavada's chief new finding is that the optical density of LMHFDC lies between SS #1 (a dark copy) and SS #2 (a light copy). New measurements show that the LMHFDC density is closer to SS #2, and Zavada advances technical arguments for why this is a reasonable expectation, although he did not predict it. He claims that this result proves that Jamieson bracketed the printing exposure level in order to achieve at least one good copy. Critics, on the other hand, might well argue that, since Jamieson had initially denied that such bracketing was done, these new results only constitute further proof that the bracketing of these films (SS # 1, SS #2, LMHFDC) was done at a later date and at some other site. In other words, since Jamieson reportedly did not use bracketing, he could not have made these copies.

LMHFDC begins at about Z-214, when the limousine is near the Stemmons freeway sign. Therefore, nothing can be said about initial loading fog or the perforated number supposedly placed during developing. However, as in SS #1 and SS #2, terminal fog, and then an image of 0183, appears after the final image (of a scene) on the home movie side. Zavada again claims (as he did in his initial September 1998 report) that the septum line is characteristic of the Jamieson printer. He also adds that the line is the same in each of SS #1, SS #2, and LMHFDC. In his September 1998 report, however, Zavada had stated: I'm sure the reader is aware that our attempt to exactly replicate the 1963 JAMIESON [printer to] produce [a] septum line has not been successful." (What he should have said is that his attempt to match the septum line on the home movie sequence was not successful, he merely assumes that these copies were made on the Jamieson printer, but this is exactly what is being questioned.) Doug Mizzer (in a memo to Harry Livingstone) summarized this evidence: the septum line on the SS copies is about 0.036 inches wide, whereas the line on the filmstrip cited by Zavada and that produced on the Bell & Howell Model J Printer in 1959 was only 0.020 to 0.025 inches wide-a large, and easily visible, difference. This means that Jamieson's printer might very well not have made these purported first day copies.

This question of the septum line is not trivial. It is Zavada's hypothesis that the intersprocket images on the home movie side were produced by a separate light source that also produced the septum line. But if the septum line is not authentic, then Zavada's explanation for the intersprocket images (on the home movie side) is also in doubt. In fact, Zavada reports on his trial with an old Model J printer that used an independent tungsten lamp. He concludes: "A trial print was made to determine the extent and penetration of the light along the perforation edge [intersprocket area] of the film. The results showed that although edge illumination was achieved, no light penetrated between the perforations."

To make the above negative result even worse, Jamieson quotes Robert Colley (Jamieson letter of 21 October 1997 to Zavada), a printer operator who was actually in the lab on 22 November: "...in order to retain the original edge numbers, the B-Wind originals were printed FULL APERATURE [sic] (pix and sound area) from TAILS." Despite this clear statement, however, Zavada concludes exactly the opposite (Study 3, p. 3): "...the initial belief that the prints were printed 'full aperture,' picture plus sound, also proved incorrect based on the examination of the images of the resulting prints." In my view, this is a perfect example of circular reasoning - the question is whether the copies in question are indeed first day copies, but Zavada merely assumes that they are, and then proceeds to draw conclusions based on his assumption.

Based on the above data, Doug Mizzer argues that because the SS copies do have edge printing, then, if they were made on the Jamieson printer, they should not have a septum line (on the home movie side). Therefore, since both SS copies do have a septum line and edge printing, they could not have been made on Jamieson's printer. The reverse statement is this (quoting Mizzer): " ... if the copies were made on Jamieson's printer in the pix only mode, there would be a septum line on both sides of the film [i.e., the motorcade side, too], but there would be NO EDGE PRINTING." (Author's note: In fact, both sides contain edge printing and the motorcade side in the SS copies has no septum line.)

To further confound matters, Zavada received a letter from Herb Farmer (1 August 1998) of the USC School of Cinema and Television. Farmer, who had four old Model J's, stated: "None of our model J printers have had any modification for edge marking printing at the picture printing aperture." Furthermore, he then added: "If I were faced with the original printing problem, I would probably have printed the film on the model J with the printing aperture wide open which would expose everything from the inside edge of the sprocket hole on the printing sprocket side to the opposite edge of the film (the picture and track area)." In other words, both Robert Colley and Herb Farmer have implied that the motorcade side (for the first day copies) should contain intersprocket images, but, in fact, none are seen.

In view of all of the above, many of Zavada's conclusions must remain in grave doubt. Unfortunately, he seemed quite unable to conceive of the possibility that the present three copies are not Jamieson copies. Instead, he obviously preferred to accept what he had been told-namely that these three are authentic first day copies. There is a distinct sense of 'deja vu here, this is the same mental state that so hampered prior investigations of the medical evidence. (See my essay, "The Medical Evidence Decoded," elsewhere in this volume.)

Mantik, D. (2000). The Zapruder film controversy (pp. 38-39). https://www.academia.edu/69989816/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy

As we proceed to look at the technical issues which prove that the Zapruder film is fraudulent, you are going to see that the scenario above in which Rollie Zavada acts on his confirmation bias to manipulate the findings in his study of the Zapruder film is a scenario that rreccurs again and again, and that those manipulated findings are uncritically accepted and relied upon by hacks such as David Wrone, and in turn by unwary readers desperate to find uncontroversial solutions, such as yourself.

My first installment on the subject of the technical issues was made in a previous post to which you have not responded, documenting that registration number 0183, which Eastman Kodak and Jamieson Film technicians swore under oath on 11/22/1963 was perforated onto the end of the film, ostensibly appears instead at the end of side A (the family scenes) instead of at the end of side B (the assassination sequence), as attested to, which we know only due to the image of 0183 appeaing on what are purportedly the first day copies, since side A is currently missing from the extant "original" Zapruder film. The link to that post is as follows (and following that link are the same day sworn documents showing that 0183 would be at the end of the extant"original" Zapruder film in the National Archives, were it an authentic film.

____________

11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR P.M. CHAMBERLAIN, JR., SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

____________

11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF JAMIESON FILM COMPANY LABORATORY MANAGER FRANK R. SLOAN SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

____________

6/28/1997 NOTATION OF ROLAND ZAVADA OF HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH FORMER EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PROCESSING FOREMAN TOM NULTY WHO TOLD ZAVADA THAT IT WAS HIS RECOLLECTION THAT THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM "RECEIVED HANDLING SIMILAR TO CUSTOMER FILMS" ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION, THUS PLACING IN QUESTION ZAVADA'S THEORY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED ONTO THE END OF THE HOME MOVIE SEQUENCE ( SIDE A ) RATHER THAN THE END OF THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE ( SIDE B ), THEREBY DEPARTING FROM KODAK'S STANDARD AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, BECAUSE THE FILM WAS "SPECIALLY" PROCESSED. THUS AND THEREFORE, WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EVIDENCE ABOVE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

 

I will respond to the remainder of your comments in a subsequent post...

 

I just skimmed this but in summary, are you arguing that the first day copies of the camera original film were all more or less identical and that at some point after alteration the copies of the altered film were printed at different settings (presumably by those behind the alterations) and it is these versions that are in the National Archives today?

Your posts would benefit greatly if you would start with a bullet point summary of what you are presenting, ideally prefacing each section with the point it is supporting.

I’m not a fan of poetry but I am a big fan of bullet points.

Edited 12 hours ago by Kevin Balch

[Keven Hofeling]

 

4 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

I just skimmed this but in summary, are you arguing that the first day copies of the camera original film were all more or less identical and that at some point after alteration the copies of the altered film were printed at different settings (presumably by those behind the alterations) and it is these versions that are in the National Archives today?

Your posts would benefit greatly if you would start with a bullet point summary of what you are presenting, ideally prefacing each section with the point it is supporting.

I’m not a fan of poetry but I am a big fan of bullet points.

Quote

 

12 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

@Kevin Balch and Mr. Bojczuk are here essentially repeating the speculation of Kodak chemist Roland Zavada -- who conducted the ARRB's Zapruder film study -- that the differences in density between the alleged three first day copies of the Zapruder film are the result of "bracketing," a term which denotes a contact printer procedure by which multiple exposures of a film are made at different exposure settings to allow a customer to select the best copy from multiple choices.

In the context of the ARRB Zapruder film study, Zavada's speculation to this effect had been influenced by the observation of differences in density between the two first day Secret Service copies of the Zapruder film, and then in December of 1999, the LMH Company (the Time-Life shell corporation with ownership of LIFE's Zapruder film materials) allowed Zavada to inspect the third first day copy that had been purchased by LIFE in 1963, leading Zavada to conclude as follows in his February 2000 Addendum to his Zapruder film study:

A side-by-side evaluation was made matching adjacent scene images of Secret Service Copy No. 1 and No. 2 and LMH Co. item No. 2 [the third first day copy]. All three films had different densities, with the LMH Co. copy in-between the two Secret Service copies.

A good color version of Zavada's comparison of the film densities from his supplemental report is reproduced in Harrison Livingstone's Hoax of the Century:

Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (p. 139): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive.   https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183

Although Livingstone believed there were other adequate explanations for the differences in density between the first day copies, critics such as Doug Horne agree with Zavada's analysis that the differences in density support Zavada's conclusion that bracketing was employed during the contact printing of the three copies. What Horne disputes, however, is that the three first day copies compared by Zavada are in fact the original first day copies, an assertion Horne supports with the earliest statements of Bruce Jamieson, the owner of the Jamieson Film Company, which performed the contact printing of the three first copies the evening of the assassination.

Horne cites Bruce Jamieson's letter to Harrison Livingstone dated February 4, 1998, as reproduced in Livingstone's Hoax of the Century:

Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (pp.265-266): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive.    https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183

At the bottom half of page 266 of Livingstone's Hoax of the Century (above), we see that by the time of Bruce Jamieson's correspondence to Harry Livingstone dated May 26, 1999, he had underwent a change of opinion resulting in him by then embracing Zavada's bracketing hypothesis, which was the result of a lobbying process carried out by Zavada, which Doug Horne sees as a big problem, as detailed by Horne as follows:

"...The problem is-and it is a BIG PROBLEM as it pertains to the authenticity of the 'first generation' copies-Bruce Jamieson initially told Rollie Zavada-once orally and twice, in writing-that his company had not bracketed the three duplicate exposures run off the day of the assassination for Mr. Zapruder from the unslit camera original film. Just as he had in regard to the issue of whether the aperture on the contact printer was 'picture only' or 'picture plus soundtrack' (i.e., 'full frame'), Rollie Zavada persuaded Bruce Jamieson, after the fact, to essentially change his mind about what procedures had been followed at his lab the day of the assassination, based solely upon Zavada's observation of density differences in the 'first generation' copies in evidence today. And once again, Bruce Jamieson appeared to be more than willing to 'change history' to accommodate the desires of his questioner. But these changes of mind by Jamieson are not good oral history procedure, and are certainly not the proper way to conduct an impartial investigation of authenticity.

In two different letters to Rollie Zavada in 1997, which I will quote below, Jamieson expressed the opinion that his employees did not bracket the original Zapruder film when it was duplicated on November 22, 1963. He was in a direct position to know, because he took the phone call from the Kodak lab expert (Mr. Erwin "Pat" Pattist) the day of the assassination, in which the problems involved in duplicating a Kodachrome II daylight film, using Kodachrome IIA tungsten balanced film stock, were discussed. Jamieson and his film printer then personally agreed on the best exposure (singular-not plural) to use when duplicating the film. In 1996 Zavada wrote this in his December 19^th letter to the ARRB, after making his first telephonic contact with Bruce Jamieson: "...he and his printer estimated the best printer light and filter pack. (Note: Kodachrome IIA was balanced for 3400 degrees Kelvin whereas typical print stock is balanced for 3200 degrees Kelvin.)" The point here is that Jamieson was directly involved in the discussion of the criteria and procedures to be used in duplicating Zapruder's original movie, and anything he would subsequently recall about the event would therefore carry more weight than what he had to say about the printing aperture, which was really Jamieson taking Robert Colley at his word.

The following excerpts from correspondence between Zavada and Jamieson are reproduced from the Appendix to the Zavada report. I am very glad, at this juncture, that the ARRB staff (namely, Jeremy Gunn and I) required Rollie Zavada to publish all correspondence between himself and either the ARRB or his witnesses, in the interests of transparency-for this correspondence (once again) reveals Bruce Jamieson's original recollections about a crucial matter in evidence, and the subsequent modifications he made to his memory to accommodate Zavada's viewpoints.

In a letter from Rollie Zavada to Bruce Jamieson of October 8, 1997, Zavada documented in writing that Jamieson had told him orally in a telephone conversation that the three dupes his company ran off were not bracketed:

In our telephone conversation on Sept. 25, I asked about the printer used for printing the Zapruder double 8 mm original onto Kodachrome 11A supplied by the Kodak Dallas Processing Lab. You indicated you printed all three copies with the same filter pack and light. [author's emphasis]

Then, on October 21, 1997, Jamieson wrote Rollie Zavada a long letter about many technical issues, in which he said:

Earlier you had mentioned to me that of the three prints you have seen [referring here to the extant Zapruder film and the two Secret Service copies], one was significantly over-exposed, differing from the other two. [See Figure 3-11 on page 22 of Study 3 of the Zavada report; and page 140 of Livingstone.] It is possible that some inadvertent light change could have been made between printing passes, but I really doubt that any intentional change was made. The basic filter pack and exposure index for printing onto Kodachrome stock was arrived at by joint discussion between our people and Kodak personnel, and I don't think any variation between prints was contemplated.  [author's emphasis]

This answer must not have pleased Rollie Zavada, for in his next reply Jamieson both reconfirms his original position that there was no bracketing, but also reveals an apparent ambivalence about what actually happened. In a letter to Rollie Zavada dated November 20, 1997, Jamieson wrote:

Now a further comment regarding the print you observed to be much different [clearly, Secret Service copy no. 2] (over-exposed?) from the others. I have previously noted my doubt that there was any difference in the three prints we made, but it's always possible. [author's emphasis]

Alarmingly, on April 21, 1998, Jamieson wrote back to Rollie Zavada after the two had conducted extended telephonic exchanges about the question of 'bracketing,' and by this time Jamieson was willing to give Zavada what he wanted in the form of a hypothetical scenario (which departed significantly from Jamieson's original position, which was that bracketing had not occurred):

You have previously postulated that the varying exposures of the two Secret Service prints might be indicative of an attempt to bracket optimum exposure since conversion of the film speed of the Type A Kodachrome II to our normal print film was somewhat in question. / can rationalize this in the following manner. When Pat Pattist and I spoke on the phone in setting up the plan to print un-slit double 8 mm, the subject of exposure came up, and Pat offered some information in guiding us, which was passed on to our lab people. When Mr. Zapruder and the Secret Service arrived,[17] his principal concern was the security of his own film and protection of its exclusivity. That is why he insisted in accompanying the printer operator into the darkroom while the prints were being made. It is also obvious that he was already considering the value and marketability of his film because of previously putting the camera in his safe, and subsequently his action the next day of setting a schedule for a one­ time screening after which each media representative would make their best offer for exclusive rights. Obviously he would want the best possible print for that purpose, and this would be his only opportunity to obtain a timely print, so when questions arose about optimum exposure, he very likely insisted on bracketing the selected exposure with the three prints. He then took the best print for his own use, and turned over the other two to the Secret Service. I can't prove the foregoing hypothesis but it certainly makes sense to me as the onlv logical explanation for the wide exposure difference in the two archived prints. It certainly wasn't accidental. [author's emphasis]

[17]. lt is my belief that the personnel at the Jamieson lab confused Zapruder's business confusion by misrepresenting who Schwartz really was in order to gain leverage over the technicians in the Jamieson lab.) The best reconstruction of events available to us today indicates that Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels departed the Kodak lab before the developing of the original film was completed, and never went to the Jamieson lab.

Well! This obliging hypothesis offered up by Bruce Jamieson, after being beaten down by Rollie Zavada over the 'bracketing' issue for almost 7 months, is certainly NOT "the only logical explanation" for the apparent bracketing seen in the two Secret Service copies (and later confirmed in December of 1999 at the Archives). The other logical explanation, of course, is that the Jamieson film Jab never did bracket the duplicates, and that the 'first generation' copies we have today are not the copies made by the Jamieson lab on the day of the assassination! Of course, neither Rollie Zavada nor Bruce Jamieson was willing to acknowledge that other logical possibility. If they did not think that likely, then that was certainly their prerogative, but Zavada should have at least acknowledged the possibility of substituted 'first generation' copies in his report. That he did not do so is another indicator of the extent to which Rollie was determined to conclude that both the extant film and the 'first generation' copies were authentic films, no matter what the evidence showed.

If the 'bracketing' issue were the only discrepancy involving the Zapruder film-if we did not have other problems such as the major chain-of-custodydiscrepancy indicating that a new unslit 'original' was created at Rochester on Sunday; and the discrepancy about what the 3 duplicates should look like in the intersprocket area (due to the controversy over 'full frame' printing aperture vs 'picture only'); and the discrepancy over whether or not the processing edge printer lights were turned off when the original film was developed; and the discrepancy over whether the original film was slit before Zapruder left the Kodak lab at 9 PM on Friday, or left unslit-then I might be willing to adopt the generous mind set of a Bruce Jamieson and doubt my own recollections to the point where I would be willing to construct a 'hypothesis' that contradicted everything I had previously said about 'bracketing' of the duplicate films, simply because the films in evidence contradicted my best recollections from the day of the assassination. But this is not a normal situation involving a normal film; it is the John F. Kennedy assassination, in which almost every aspect and item of evidence appears to be either taintedy and/or in conflict with other key evidence. The Kennedy assassination was not solved in 1963 by assuming that 'all things were equal' with other murder cases and that all of the evidence could be trusted; and continuing attempts since 1963 to solve the assassination by assuming that the physical evidence is untainted, and trustworthy, have resulted in the case becoming literally insoluble, since the more we study a field of physical evidence that is clearly untrustworthy, the more problematic the evidence becomes, and the more we realize that the evidence in this case simply "does not come together," as Josiah Thompson has so aptly put it. Given all of the other apparent problems with the Zapruder film evidence in particular, the obliging hypothesis that Bruce Jamieson spun for Rollie Zavada's benefit-after clearly having been coached by Zavada-is simply not worthy of belief. Let me explain why. After meticulously and deliberately arriving at a joint decision with his printer operator about which filter pack and exposure to use when making the three duplicates, surely-if Zapruder had insisted upon bracketing his exposures while in the printing room with Marshall Collier-the printer operator would have said, "time out," and would have consulted with Bruce Jamieson first about how to conduct this hypothetical bracketing of such an important film. Everyone knew that the subject matter was the assassination of President Kennedy, and no single employee would have wanted to be responsible for screwing up the job of duplicating the film. In the case of such a unique situation-the use of indoor Kodachrome IIA film for a duplicating role for which it was not intended-surely, Collier would have consulted with his boss and the owner of the lab in which he worked, before bracketing the exposures of the duplicates. (After all, deciding upon which filter pack to use and what exposure was appropriate was tricky enough already that Kodak had already consulted with Jamieson directly over the matter.) The fact that Jamieson, who initially recalled that bracketing was not done, also recalled no such additional consultation with his printer operator after Zapruder entered the printing room, is persuasive evidence to me that bracketing did not take place.

And yet Zavada concluded otherwise, even in his final report produced in September of 1998, before he had a chance to examine the LMH copy. He was enamored with the hypothesis offered up by Bruce Jamieson. It is no wonder that he was, considering that he surely planted that hypothesis in Bruce Jamieson's mind. In Study 3 of the Zavada report, Rollie wrote (on page 20 of Study 3):

The difference in density [between Secret Service copy no. 1 and no. 2] is significant-more than one would expect from a printer operator trying to 'bracket' a presumed correct exposure. However, it is possible that three different light levels were chosen-and that the copies agent Sorrels received were the [sic] bracketed high and low and that Time-Life received the nominal. [emphasis in original]

Zavada then reported, and endorsed, the 'Jamieson' hypothesis in full on the next page:

The density difference issue is perplexing and has been discussed with Bruce Jamieson, Motion Picture Laboratory management and printing personnel. Trying to place ourselves in the position of the Jamieson Film Company in 1963, we hypothesized the following:

a.   They were faced with a significant time constraint-essentiallyimmediate. This constraint precluded scene testing of the original to assess the ideal print density and filter pack.

b.  The lab did not have 8 mm perforated print stock on hand to permit using familiar materials. This mandated the use of 8 mm Type A camera film as a print material (supplied by Kodak). The type A camera film is both faster (ASA 40) and balanced for a higher color temperature (3400 degrees Kelvin) than a typical print stock having a slower speed and a lower (neutral aim balance) color temperature of about 2800 degrees Kelvin.

c. The lab consulted with Erwin 'Pat' Pattist, Quality Control Supervisor of the Kodak Dallas Processing Laboratory, (possibly) togain his assurance that the process was 'in control' and his opinion about the selection of filter pack and printer light.

d. Handling of the films was complicated because Mr. Zapruder was present in the printing room while his original was being copied.

Scenario 1 - lf Mr. Zapruder had requested three 'good' copies of his original, the prudent approach would be to print 'one light,' i.e., all three prints with the (same) best choice of filter pack and printer light setting. If this scenario was followed, Secret Service copy 1 and Secret Service copy 2 should be a close match.

Scenario 2 - lf Mr. Zapruder had requested  'good' copy of his original, and provided three customer Type A film rolls for print stock to achieve this objective, a printer 'light­ bracketing' approach could have been considered. The procedure would be to select an aim printing light level for the first print and then possibly expose a half stop over and under for the second and third prints while maintaining the chosen filter pack. This scenario could be the basis of the density differences seen, especially if the LIFE magazine copy density falls in-between the two Secret Service copies, and would be my personal best guess of what happened. [emphasis in original]

In his February 2000 Addendum, Zavada continued with his biased, one-way interpretation of the evidence by writing on page 9:

The hypothesis that the Jamieson Film Company bracketed the printing exposure level to achieve an ideal 'good' copy from the three camera film spools of Kodachrome IIA provided by Kodak proved correct. This also confirmed our belief that Mr. A. Zapruder retained the best copy and provided the Secret Service the bracketed higher and lower density copies.

I can just as easily compose the alternate scenario for what the bracketing could mean, and will do so now:

The three 'first generation' copies in evidence today are indeed 'bracketed.' But since Mr. Bruce Jamieson's initial strong recollection was that his laboratory personnel did not bracket the three duplicates that they ran off in their Bell and Howell Model J contact printer, we can conclude that the three bracketed duplicates we have in evidence today are not the 'first day copies' made from the camera original film on the day of the assassination,and are instead substitute duplicates made from an altered 'original' and substituted for the three true first day copies' sometime after the weekend following the assassination.

In other words, the presence of'bracketing' in the three extant 'first generation' copies is additional dispositive evidence that indirectly proves an altered 'original' film was created the weekend of the assassination (on Sunday, in Rochester at the "Hawkeye Plant"), and that substitute duplicates were then struck from this altered 'original.' The altered 'original' and the best quality print of the three bracketed duplicates would likely have gone directly to LIFE magazine on Monday, November 25th and the true 'first day copies' in the hands of: (I) the FBI in Washington; (2) the Secret Service in Washington; and (3) in the custody of Abraham Zapruder in Dallas, would have been collected and removed from circulation no later than the close of business Monday, November 25, 1963. Zapruder would simply have relinquished his own authentic 'first day copy' to Richard Stolley Monday afternoon after his contract was renegotiated, and Stolley would have forwarded it to LIFE, where the switch with its substitute duplicate could have been made in quiet by C.D. Jackson. In my view Rollie Zavada is incorrect when he wrote that Zapruder kept the best bracketed copy for himself. In reality I don't believe Abraham Zapruder ever saw the bracketed, substitute 'first generation' copy that later became known as 'LMH copy no. 2; I believe that Zapruder's heirs received this item from LIFE only in April of 1975 (five years after Zapruder's death in 1970), when Time, Inc. 'sold' the whole kit and caboodle back to the LMH Company for one dollar. I believe the Secret Service 'first day copy' in Washington, D. C., and the other 'first day copy' which was temporarily in the hands of FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., were both swapped out first thing Monday morning, November 25^th. This would have allowed the FBI all day long on Monday to run off its substandard 'second generation' prints from the substitute 'first generation' copy given to them (with their full cooperation) on Monday morning, November 25th. By Monday evening, all of the true 'first day copies,' as well as the true camera original film, were likely removed from official circulation, and all of the key films we know of today were probably in place.

Most likely, either the true camera original film, or the true 'first day copies' (or perhaps all of them) were not immediately destroyed, and remained in private hands, resulting in the various accounts over the years that different people have seen (or owned) a different version of the Zapruder film than exists in the public domain today.

Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1267-1272).

And on what basis, you might ask, did Bruce Jamieson originally assert that the first day copies of the Zapruder film had not been bracketed? On the basis of Jamieson Film Company printer operator Robert Colley's recollections of the work performed. Doug Horne wrote:

"...I reviewed the Appendices to the Zavada report to look for the correspondence in which Bruce Jamieson changed his mind about how the aperture was set on his contact printer the day of the assassination. In a letter to Zavada dated October 21, 1997 (before he wrote to Harry Livingstone), Jamieson wrote:

I am advised by Mr. Robert Colley, who was a printer operator in our lab at that time, and who was in-and-out of the next printing room with our 3-head release printer at the time the Zapruder prints were made. He confirms that the Zapruder film was printed on a B&H Model J printer (not the 3-head printer as I originally believed). He further reminds me that our normal procedure was...the B-wind originals were printed FULL APERATURE [sic] (pix and sound area) from TAILS [meaning, starting with the tail end of the film on the supply reel]. Mr. Colley believes that this was the procedure used in printing the Zapruder film.

By April 21, 1998, Zavada had clearly persuaded Jamieson that Robert Colley must have been incorrect about the 'full aperture' (pix plus sound area) printing setup, by using the present day appearance of the 'first generation' copies to get Jamieson to doubt Robert Colley's recollections, because in a letter of that date published in the Appendix of the Zavada report, Jamieson wrote:

Next, the aperture setting on the printer was certainly in the 'picture only' position as evidenced by the unexposed section from picture frame edge to the film edge on the motorcade section of film. Both SS prints show that characteristic... [emphasis in original]

Clearly, Zavada has gotten Jamieson to flip-flop on what was previously his best professional opinion about what had happened in 1963 by showing him what was in the official record in 1997 and by then getting him to modify his position-his best professional opinion as expressed to both Rollie in October of 1997 and then to Harry Livingstone in February of 1998-that the copies his lab printed were made at 'full frame' or 'picture plus soundtrack' aperture. This is not the proper way to conduct an investigation into authenticity. The details about techniques employed-as recalled independently by qualified, expert eyewitnesses-are crucially important to studies of authenticity. This is why Jeremy Gunn asked John Stringer about the procedures employed and type of film used to photograph President Kennedy's brain before he showed him the photographs-because all too many witnesses are willing to change their opinions and recollections to either please the person asking the question, or to conform to the evidence placed before them. Bruce Jamieson's original answers given to Rollie Zavada in October of 1997 and to Harry Livingstone in February of 1998 (about what aperture was used on his printer when copying Zapruder's camera original film) should not be any more subject to change than John Stringer's initial answers given about the procedures used to photograph President Kennedy's brain, or about the type of film he used to do it. The ARRB did not ask John Stringer to reassess his best recollection of how he shot the brain photographs, and about what kind of film he used, just because his recollections differed from the photographs in the Archives. Rollie Zavada demonstrated here a tendency to 'jawbone' his witnesses into changing their testimony until their testimony fit his preconceived assumptions about the authenticity of the films he was examining. He did the same thing to Bruce Jamieson over the 'bracketing' issue, as I will reveal later in this subsection.

In summary, if Robert Colley's firm recollection-fully endorsed in writing, in October of 1997 by Bruce Jamieson and then expressed again as his own opinion, in writing, in February of 1998-that the camera original Zapruder film was copied with the B&H Model J printer set on 'full frame' (i.e., picture plus soundtrack) aperture JS CORRECT, then the 'first day copies' made on November 22, 1963 must have displayed the same intersprocket images recorded on the original film that day. Since the 'first generation' copies in the record today do not show the same type of full intersprocket penetration seen in the extant Ji.Im, the absence of such full-penetration intersprocket images on the motorcade portions of these films constitutes dispositive evidence proving that the 3 films represented as 'first generation ' copies today cannot be the 'first day copies ' duplicated at the Jamieson film lab on November 22, 1963. The implication here is that after a new 'original' (with 'full flush left' intersprocket penetration in every frame) was created at Rochester (at the "Hawkeye Plant"), three new 'first generation' copies were duplicated on a contact printer at Rochester, but the aperture was mistakenly set at 'picture only,' and not at 'picture plus soundtrack.' Under my working hypothesis, the technicians at the "Hawkeye Plant" would not have been aware of their error because they did not have in their possession any of the true 'first day copies' to examine before they made the three new substitute contact prints. On Sunday, November 24^th when the three substitute copies were struck at the "Hawkeye Plant," one true 'first day copy' was in the hands of the FBI in Washington, D.C. (having been loaned to the FBI by the Secret Service in Dallas on Saturday); another was in the hands of the Secret Service in Washington, D.C. (having been flown there late

Friday night from Dallas and having arrived early Saturday morning); and the third was still in the hands of Abraham Zapruder until Monday, November 251\  when his sale contract with Time,

Inc. was renegotiated for an additional$ 100,000.00. In fact, it was his 'first day copy' that Dan Rather viewed on Monday, according to author Richard Trask (and as later agreed to by Dan Rather himself). The Kodak technicians at the CIA's Hawkeye Plant could not have known it, but they inadvertently left indirect evidence pointing to the forgery of a new 'original' film when they impropetly replicated the three substitute 'first generation' copies using different procedures than those that had been employed by the staff at the Jamieson film lab in Dallas.

Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1258-1259).

Thus, we have the earliest stated recollections of the film laboratory owner, Bruce Jamieson, and of the Jamieson Film Company printer operator, Robert Colley, attesting that the bracketing procedure was not employed during the contact printing of the three first day copies, and these accounts are by far the most probative and enjoy the greatest evidentiary weight out of all of the evidence involved in the consideration of the bracketing issue. Instead of proceeding upon the basis of that best evidence, Rollie Zavada followed his confirmation bias-based impulses and lobbied Bruce Jamieson to change his testimony, thereby revealing his flawed methodologies as an investigator, and placing in question all of Zavada's conclusions.

Dr. David Mantik, writing in 2000, expanded upon Horne's analysis of the bracketing question, and addressed associated issues involving septum line inconsistencies in the first day Zapruder film copies which Zavada had conceded he was unable to reproduce:

ADDENDUM: LMH "FIRST DAY COPY"

In 1999, Roland J. Zavada examined the LMH Co. "First Day Copy" (hereafter described as LMHFDC) and published a report: "Addendum to Technical Report #318420P: Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence." In this report Zavada claims that the third copy made by Jamieson on 22 November 1963 is the LMH copy (also known as the Life copy). In an unrelated matter, but still one of great interest, Zavada also reports (letter to Douglas P. Horne, 14 March 2000) that the Zapruder family transferred their copyright and complete inventory of films to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. Zavada's chief new finding is that the optical density of LMHFDC lies between SS #1 (a dark copy) and SS #2 (a light copy). New measurements show that the LMHFDC density is closer to SS #2, and Zavada advances technical arguments for why this is a reasonable expectation, although he did not predict it. He claims that this result proves that Jamieson bracketed the printing exposure level in order to achieve at least one good copy. Critics, on the other hand, might well argue that, since Jamieson had initially denied that such bracketing was done, these new results only constitute further proof that the bracketing of these films (SS # 1, SS #2, LMHFDC) was done at a later date and at some other site. In other words, since Jamieson reportedly did not use bracketing, he could not have made these copies.

LMHFDC begins at about Z-214, when the limousine is near the Stemmons freeway sign. Therefore, nothing can be said about initial loading fog or the perforated number supposedly placed during developing. However, as in SS #1 and SS #2, terminal fog, and then an image of 0183, appears after the final image (of a scene) on the home movie side. Zavada again claims (as he did in his initial September 1998 report) that the septum line is characteristic of the Jamieson printer. He also adds that the line is the same in each of SS #1, SS #2, and LMHFDC. In his September 1998 report, however, Zavada had stated: I'm sure the reader is aware that our attempt to exactly replicate the 1963 JAMIESON [printer to] produce [a] septum line has not been successful." (What he should have said is that his attempt to match the septum line on the home movie sequence was not successful, he merely assumes that these copies were made on the Jamieson printer, but this is exactly what is being questioned.) Doug Mizzer (in a memo to Harry Livingstone) summarized this evidence: the septum line on the SS copies is about 0.036 inches wide, whereas the line on the filmstrip cited by Zavada and that produced on the Bell & Howell Model J Printer in 1959 was only 0.020 to 0.025 inches wide-a large, and easily visible, difference. This means that Jamieson's printer might very well not have made these purported first day copies.

This question of the septum line is not trivial. It is Zavada's hypothesis that the intersprocket images on the home movie side were produced by a separate light source that also produced the septum line. But if the septum line is not authentic, then Zavada's explanation for the intersprocket images (on the home movie side) is also in doubt. In fact, Zavada reports on his trial with an old Model J printer that used an independent tungsten lamp. He concludes: "A trial print was made to determine the extent and penetration of the light along the perforation edge [intersprocket area] of the film. The results showed that although edge illumination was achieved, no light penetrated between the perforations."

To make the above negative result even worse, Jamieson quotes Robert Colley (Jamieson letter of 21 October 1997 to Zavada), a printer operator who was actually in the lab on 22 November: "...in order to retain the original edge numbers, the B-Wind originals were printed FULL APERATURE [sic] (pix and sound area) from TAILS." Despite this clear statement, however, Zavada concludes exactly the opposite (Study 3, p. 3): "...the initial belief that the prints were printed 'full aperture,' picture plus sound, also proved incorrect based on the examination of the images of the resulting prints." In my view, this is a perfect example of circular reasoning - the question is whether the copies in question are indeed first day copies, but Zavada merely assumes that they are, and then proceeds to draw conclusions based on his assumption.

Based on the above data, Doug Mizzer argues that because the SS copies do have edge printing, then, if they were made on the Jamieson printer, they should not have a septum line (on the home movie side). Therefore, since both SS copies do have a septum line and edge printing, they could not have been made on Jamieson's printer. The reverse statement is this (quoting Mizzer): " ... if the copies were made on Jamieson's printer in the pix only mode, there would be a septum line on both sides of the film [i.e., the motorcade side, too], but there would be NO EDGE PRINTING." (Author's note: In fact, both sides contain edge printing and the motorcade side in the SS copies has no septum line.)

To further confound matters, Zavada received a letter from Herb Farmer (1 August 1998) of the USC School of Cinema and Television. Farmer, who had four old Model J's, stated: "None of our model J printers have had any modification for edge marking printing at the picture printing aperture." Furthermore, he then added: "If I were faced with the original printing problem, I would probably have printed the film on the model J with the printing aperture wide open which would expose everything from the inside edge of the sprocket hole on the printing sprocket side to the opposite edge of the film (the picture and track area)." In other words, both Robert Colley and Herb Farmer have implied that the motorcade side (for the first day copies) should contain intersprocket images, but, in fact, none are seen.

In view of all of the above, many of Zavada's conclusions must remain in grave doubt. Unfortunately, he seemed quite unable to conceive of the possibility that the present three copies are not Jamieson copies. Instead, he obviously preferred to accept what he had been told-namely that these three are authentic first day copies. There is a distinct sense of 'deja vu here, this is the same mental state that so hampered prior investigations of the medical evidence. (See my essay, "The Medical Evidence Decoded," elsewhere in this volume.)

Mantik, D. (2000). The Zapruder film controversy (pp. 38-39). https://www.academia.edu/69989816/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy

As we proceed to look at the technical issues which prove that the Zapruder film is fraudulent, you are going to see that the scenario above in which Rollie Zavada acts on his confirmation bias to manipulate the findings in his study of the Zapruder film is a scenario that rreccurs again and again, and that those manipulated findings are uncritically accepted and relied upon by hacks such as David Wrone, and in turn by unwary readers desperate to find uncontroversial solutions, such as yourself.

My first installment on the subject of the technical issues was made in a previous post to which you have not responded, documenting that registration number 0183, which Eastman Kodak and Jamieson Film technicians swore under oath on 11/22/1963 was perforated onto the end of the film, ostensibly appears instead at the end of side A (the family scenes) instead of at the end of side B (the assassination sequence), as attested to, which we know only due to the image of 0183 appeaing on what are purportedly the first day copies, since side A is currently missing from the extant "original" Zapruder film. The link to that post is as follows (and following that link are the same day sworn documents showing that 0183 would be at the end of the extant"original" Zapruder film in the National Archives, were it an authentic film.

____________

11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR P.M. CHAMBERLAIN, JR., SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

____________

11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF JAMIESON FILM COMPANY LABORATORY MANAGER FRANK R. SLOAN SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

____________

6/28/1997 NOTATION OF ROLAND ZAVADA OF HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH FORMER EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PROCESSING FOREMAN TOM NULTY WHO TOLD ZAVADA THAT IT WAS HIS RECOLLECTION THAT THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM "RECEIVED HANDLING SIMILAR TO CUSTOMER FILMS" ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION, THUS PLACING IN QUESTION ZAVADA'S THEORY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED ONTO THE END OF THE HOME MOVIE SEQUENCE ( SIDE A ) RATHER THAN THE END OF THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE ( SIDE B ), THEREBY DEPARTING FROM KODAK'S STANDARD AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, BECAUSE THE FILM WAS "SPECIALLY" PROCESSED. THUS AND THEREFORE, WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EVIDENCE ABOVE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

 

I will respond to the remainder of your comments in a subsequent post...

 

 

 

Does the following work better for you?

Mr. Bojczuk’s Speculation

Mr. Bojczuk reiterates the speculation of Kodak chemist Roland Zavada, who conducted the ARRB’s Zapruder film study. Zavada suggests that the density variations in the three alleged first day copies of the Zapruder film are due to “bracketing,” a contact printer procedure in which multiple exposures are made at different settings.

Zavada’s Analysis

Zavada’s analysis was based on density differences between the two first day Secret Service copies of the Zapruder film. In December 1999, the LMH Company (Time-Life’s Zapruder film materials ownership shell corporation) allowed Zavada to inspect the third first day copy purchased by LIFE in 1963. Zavada’s examination led him to conclude:

All three films had different densities, with the LMH Co. copy in-between the two Secret Service copies.

Criticisms of Zavada’s Analysis

Harrison Livingstone expressed skepticism towards Zavada’s analysis, suggesting alternative explanations for the density differences. However, critics such as Doug Horne support Zavada’s bracketing hypothesis based on the density differences. Horne disputes that the three first day copies examined by Zavada are the original copies, citing Bruce Jamieson’s initial statements, the owner of the company that performed the contact printing of the three copies on the day of the assassination.

Horne’s Concerns

In a letter to Harrison Livingstone dated February 4, 1998, Bruce Jamieson initially stated that his company did not bracket the three duplicate exposures run off on November 22, 1963, for Mr. Zapruder from the unslit camera original film. However, in a May 26, 1999 correspondence to Livingstone, Jamieson expressed a change of opinion. Horne believes this change was the result of Zavada’s lobbying efforts, which he views as problematic for the following reasons:

• Zavada persuaded Bruce Jamieson, after the fact, to change his mind about the procedures followed at his lab the day of the assassination, based solely on Zavada’s observation of density differences in the ‘first generation’ copies.

• Bruce Jamieson’s initial recollections about procedures were more authoritative than his subsequent statements, which were influenced by Zavada’s questioning.

Zavada’s Correspondence with Jamieson

Horne provides excerpts from correspondence between Zavada and Jamieson that reveal Jamieson’s initial recollections in 1997 expressing doubt about any intentional change in exposure during the duplication process. However, in subsequent correspondence, Jamieson wavered in his position, ultimately offering a hypothetical scenario that accommodated Zavada’s bracketing hypothesis. Horne argues that Jamieson’s hypothetical scenario is not credible and suggests that the ‘first day copies’ we have today are not the ones made by the Jamieson lab on the day of the assassination.

Horne’s Hypothesis

Horne proposes an alternative hypothesis: The three ‘first day’ copies are indeed ‘bracketed,’ but since Mr. Bruce Jamieson’s initial strong recollection was that his laboratory personnel did not bracket the three duplicates, we can conclude that the three bracketed duplicates we have in evidence today are not the ‘first day copies’ made from the camera original film on the day of the assassination.

Implications of Horne’s Hypothesis

If Horne’s hypothesis is correct, it implies an altered ‘original’ film was created the weekend of the assassination, and substitute duplicates were made from this altered ‘original.’ The altered ‘original’ and the best quality print of the three bracketed duplicates would likely have gone directly to LIFE magazine on Monday, November 25th, and the true ‘first day copies’ would have been removed from circulation no later than the close of business that day. Therefore, Horne's hypothesis raises serious questions about the authenticity and integrity of the Zapruder film copies that have been studied and analyzed over the years. If his theory is accurate, it suggests a deliberate manipulation of the original film and the creation of substitute copies, potentially altering the historical record of the events surrounding President Kennedy's assassination. This revelation could have far-reaching implications for our understanding of this pivotal moment in American history.

Edited 8 hours ago by Keven Hofeling

[Kevin Balch]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

 

 

Does the following work better for you?

Mr. Bojczuk’s Speculation

Mr. Bojczuk reiterates the speculation of Kodak chemist Roland Zavada, who conducted the ARRB’s Zapruder film study. Zavada suggests that the density variations in the three alleged first day copies of the Zapruder film are due to “bracketing,” a contact printer procedure in which multiple exposures are made at different settings.

Zavada’s Analysis

Zavada’s analysis was based on density differences between the two first day Secret Service copies of the Zapruder film. In December 1999, the LMH Company (Time-Life’s Zapruder film materials ownership shell corporation) allowed Zavada to inspect the third first day copy purchased by LIFE in 1963. Zavada’s examination led him to conclude:

All three films had different densities, with the LMH Co. copy in-between the two Secret Service copies.

Criticisms of Zavada’s Analysis

Harrison Livingstone expressed skepticism towards Zavada’s analysis, suggesting alternative explanations for the density differences. However, critics such as Doug Horne support Zavada’s bracketing hypothesis based on the density differences. Horne disputes that the three first day copies examined by Zavada are the original copies, citing Bruce Jamieson’s initial statements, the owner of the company that performed the contact printing of the three copies on the day of the assassination.

Horne’s Concerns

In a letter to Harrison Livingstone dated February 4, 1998, Bruce Jamieson initially stated that his company did not bracket the three duplicate exposures run off on November 22, 1963, for Mr. Zapruder from the unslit camera original film. However, in a May 26, 1999 correspondence to Livingstone, Jamieson expressed a change of opinion. Horne believes this change was the result of Zavada’s lobbying efforts, which he views as problematic for the following reasons:

• Zavada persuaded Bruce Jamieson, after the fact, to change his mind about the procedures followed at his lab the day of the assassination, based solely on Zavada’s observation of density differences in the ‘first generation’ copies.

• Bruce Jamieson’s initial recollections about procedures were more authoritative than his subsequent statements, which were influenced by Zavada’s questioning.

Zavada’s Correspondence with Jamieson

Horne provides excerpts from correspondence between Zavada and Jamieson that reveal Jamieson’s initial recollections in 1997 expressing doubt about any intentional change in exposure during the duplication process. However, in subsequent correspondence, Jamieson wavered in his position, ultimately offering a hypothetical scenario that accommodated Zavada’s bracketing hypothesis. Horne argues that Jamieson’s hypothetical scenario is not credible and suggests that the ‘first day copies’ we have today are not the ones made by the Jamieson lab on the day of the assassination.

Horne’s Hypothesis

Horne proposes an alternative hypothesis: The three ‘first day’ copies are indeed ‘bracketed,’ but since Mr. Bruce Jamieson’s initial strong recollection was that his laboratory personnel did not bracket the three duplicates, we can conclude that the three bracketed duplicates we have in evidence today are not the ‘first day copies’ made from the camera original film on the day of the assassination.

Implications of Horne’s Hypothesis

If Horne’s hypothesis is correct, it implies an altered ‘original’ film was created the weekend of the assassination, and substitute duplicates were made from this altered ‘original.’ The altered ‘original’ and the best quality print of the three bracketed duplicates would likely have gone directly to LIFE magazine on Monday, November 25th, and the true ‘first day copies’ would have been removed from circulation no later than the close of business that day. Therefore, Horne's hypothesis raises serious questions about the authenticity and integrity of the Zapruder film copies that have been studied and analyzed over the years. If his theory is accurate, it suggests a deliberate manipulation of the original film and the creation of substitute copies, potentially altering the historical record of the events surrounding President Kennedy's assassination. This revelation could have far-reaching implications for our understanding of this pivotal moment in American history.

Yes.

Why would the alterationists bracket the copies of the altered film if the copies of the original film did not?

What test(s) can confirm Horne’s hypothesis? Is it possible to falsify Horne’s hypothesis?

[Chris Davidson]

On 8/7/2024 at 5:00 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Alvarez combined with Alvarez equals the WC.
Do you see the limo disappearing, right before your eyes?
 

 

 

 

Excerpt from Nalli study:

"For the target velocity,𝑣2, the speed of the limousine around the time of impact was estimated by Alvarez [10] to be ≈8 mph (≈3.6m/s or 360cm/s),
but there was a rapid deceleration of the limo evident (possibly even braking) [e.g., [6], [5]], so it is possible the limo speed was slower than this at the precise moment of impact."

Add him to the list and apply CE884.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

4 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

What they did here is not really bracketing. They simply, they simply added more and less light vs. the one at standard light.

But I can understand why they would call it as such.

Normally bracketing is used when capturing a scene that has too much contrast. E.g. when a part is in the shades, and another part in full sunshine.  The part in the shades needs more exposure, the part in the sun less.  So you make 1 picture where the shady part is exposed correctly, and another were the sunny is.  In post (the developping) you use these 2 negatives to make 1 picture by using the correct exposed part of each.  The 2 different exposures can be achieved by different St, Ap or even changing the iso/asa. Of course the camera has to be in an identical position for both.

That´s just one way to use it. 

There is also focus bracketing, e.g. in macro it can be tough to get a bug sharp in the picture from front to back.  Same principle here, make different pics focussing front to back and later combine the sharp parts into one picture.

Modern cameras have bracketing pre-sets, but you must still combine the different pictures into 1 in post processing fusion.

I know all of this has little to do with the Z-film, I only wanted to add some info on bracketing.

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Jean Ceulemans