news about the Darnell film

[Andrej Stancak]

14 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

I agree, Andrej. With a minor qualification.  I think early on NBC knew what the film showed.  It would have been only due diligence on their part, if they were going to take the drastic step of hiding the film, an important piece of information, for what has been 60 years.  They had a lot of time, and every reason, to enhance the film if there was significant doubt about the figure. 

 

Even if they weren't sure about the image, their corporate policy, as they explained to Alec Baldwin, has always been to back the Warren Report.  They didn't want there to even be a discussion of the figure that would be hard to control.

 

All of the relevant parties have known for some time why researchers want access to the original film.  When Greg Parker wrote to NBC in 2017 seeking access, he explained his reasons for wanting the original. They rejected him with the ludicrous, self contradictory reason that the films' safety was too important to risk letting anyone see it!  Think about that for a minute.

 

The press release says the film was sent to the museum to ensure it "will remain accessible to scholars, researchers and the general public...for generations to come".  That's a perfect explanation for why, under the JFKA Act, the original film belongs in the JFKA Collection at NARA, not the museum, a private institution.  The film is a JFKA record.  That's what the law requires.

 

NARA knows this of course, but their current position in the MFF lawsuit is they have no responsibility to add the film and other JFKA records to their Collection.  It seems to me that the fact that NBC Universal has now sent a version of the film to the museum for public viewing opens the way to forcing them to give the original to NARA as the law requires.

 

Did NBC Universal send the original or a copy to the museum?  That's an important question.  The museum's press release doesn't say.  The museum is not answering its phone.  Per the work of Andrej, Sandy, and others it appears that the museum has merely gotten a copy, and probably a doctored one at that.  Do the folks at the museum know that? 

 

Interesting fact:  A new President and General Manager of NBC5, the Dallas affiliate, a man named Tony Canales, was appointed last year.  Could that have been related to the new policy of releasing the film to the museum for public viewing?

 

In any case, sending a version of the film to the museum has all the earmarks of another limited hangout to try to further conceal the truth.

Roger: thanks for your clarifications and your great initiative geared toward obtaining Darnell and Wiegman films. It is much appreciated. The decision of NBC to allow the 6FM to share a copy of Darnell surely is related to your and other colleagues' efforts. 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

I have dowloaded the critical frame from the 6FM version of Darnell film which has been linked in the initial post in this thread. I have set Youtube to 1k resolution.

Below is a cut containing Prayer Man (the leftmost panel) as it appears on Youtube. The middle panel is the same picture after adding light to dark tones. The rightmost picture is a cropped view of Prayer Man from a picture analysed so far, also after adding a bit of light to dark tones.

 

 

The 6FM Youtube version is more blurred and has more contrasts than the previously known version of this Darnell frame. However, the Youtobe version also shows further editing. First, a black line has been added to produce a new contour of head/hair (highlighted with yellow arrows in the middle panel). This black line can hardly be seen in the original Youtube screenshot as it is burried in an overall dark region. The illusion created is that Prayer Man had a thick and long hair. Second, a bright spot has been added to Prayer Man's left forehead, changing the posture of his head. In the original picture (right panel), Prayer Man has his head tilted toward his right shoulder and appears to gaze toward the east wall; in the Youtube version, Prayer Man's head appears to be more vertical and maybe looking out of the doorway. Third, in the neck area, the light coloured neck has been widened, changing the orientation of the trunk and perhaps alluding to a different garment compared to what Prayer Man wore. Fourth, in the area of left leg, another blob has been added; this obfuscates the contour of Prayer Man's left leg which was bent in the knee joint. Prayer Man rested the weight of his body on his right foot which was one step below the bent left leg. Fifth, the area of Prayer Man's abdomen appears to be tampered with as well. I see a rectangular separation of two distinct areas of grey with the left part appearing homogenous. That would preclude any analysis of the grey blob (specks of dirt?) appearing on the front facing of Prayer Man's shirt.

 

Edited Sunday at 08:36 AM by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

10 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

There are 2 questions: 1. Does the 6FM have the original, the film taken out of Darnell’s camera? 2. Is the version on YouTube off the original film or is it a multi-generation copy? 

These are the questions we need to address to the 6FM. I feel we have greater chances to gain access to a high-quality copy of the original film after publicising by the 6FM the Youtube version than before. 

[Denis Morissette]

I sent my questions to Stephen of the 6FM. He usually answers to me fast.

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Denis Morissette said:

I sent my questions to Stephen of the 6FM. He usually answers to me fast.

Thanks, Denis.  I was about to to do that tomorrow, as well as try to get an answer from NBC about whether the film original has been transferred.  And how the negotiations developed in the first place after NBC spent 60+ denying access to everyone who asked for it.  Does NBC know if the film is to go anywhere, it belongs in the JFKA Collection at NARA under the JFKA Act?

Let us know what Fagin says.

One development:  Last year NBC5, the Dallas affiliate of the conglomerate where Darnell worked, announced a new President and General Manager.  I wonder if he had anything to do with what is a change in policy.

When, 7 years ago, Greg Parker asked for access to the original Darnell, NBC said no.  The safety of the film was too important to risk letting anyone see it!  It seems that policy has now been reversed.  The PR announcing the transaction says the film was transferred to the museum so scholars, researchers, and the public could see it.  And determine for themselves what happened.  Precisely the reason given in the ARRB Final Report for the creation of the JFKA Collection at NARA.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Thanks, Denis.  I was about to to do that tomorrow, as well as try to get an answer from NBC about whether the film original has been transferred.  And how the negotiations developed in the first place after NBC spent 60+ denying access to everyone who asked for it.  Does NBC know if the film is to go anywhere, it belongs in the JFKA Collection at NARA under the JFKA Act?

Let us know what Fagin says.

One development:  Last year NBC5, the Dallas affiliate of the conglomerate where Darnell worked, announced a new President and General Manager.  I wonder if he had anything to do with what is a change in policy.

When, 7 years ago, Greg Parker asked for access to the original Darnell, NBC said no.  The safety of the film was too important to risk letting anyone see it!  It seems that policy has now been reversed.  The PR announcing the transaction says the film was transferred to the museum so scholars, researchers, and the public could see it.  And determine for themselves what happened.  Precisely the reason given in the ARRB Final Report for the creation of the JFKA Collection at NARA.

The Sixth Floor Museum has become accepted as THE repository of the filmed evidence of the assassination. They have a number of the films, including the Zapruder film. They are a private museum which has expressed an interest in historical artifacts, and has shown the ability to preserve these artifacts. So it makes perfect sense that people and companies in possession of historical artifacts will come to provide them with more and more artifacts over time. This is what happens in the museum business. 

The Darnell film was never owned by the government. It was always in private hands. So the transfer of this film to the Sixth Floor Museum is no more troubling or suspicious than than the transfer of numerous other items to the museum. 

[Roger Odisio]

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The Sixth Floor Museum has become accepted as THE repository of the filmed evidence of the assassination. They have a number of the films, including the Zapruder film. They are a private museum which has expressed an interest in historical artifacts, and has shown the ability to preserve these artifacts. So it makes perfect sense that people and companies in possession of historical artifacts will come to provide them with more and more artifacts over time. This is what happens in the museum business. 

The Darnell film was never owned by the government. It was always in private hands. So the transfer of this film to the Sixth Floor Museum is no more troubling or suspicious than than the transfer of numerous other items to the museum. 

You're misinformed, Pat.  The politicians who passed the JFKA Act wisely delegated to the ARRB, created by the Act, the job of defining what a JFK record was the Board was supposed to look for.  The Board defined "record" as broadly as possible:  it is any information relevant to understanding the assassination *regardless of the form it takes or who possesses it*

JFKA records are *not* confined to those held by the government.  It's amazing to me how many people still don't understand that basic point. There is a chapter in the ARRB Final Report that discusses the search for non-governmental JFKA records.  The Zapruder film, taken from the family and now at NARA, is just one example. 

The museum has *not* become accepted as THE repository of film evidence by anyone who knows what they're talking about.  Why do you think the MFF filed a lawsuit to get NARA to live up to its responsibility in keeping the JFKA Collection it houses up to date.  As the law requires.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

You're misinformed, Pat.  The politicians who passed the JFKA Act wisely delegated to the ARRB, created by the Act, the job of defining what a JFK record was the Board was supposed to look for.  The Board defined "record" as broadly as possible:  it is any information relevant to understanding the assassination *regardless of the form it takes or who possesses it*

JFKA records are *not* confined to those held by the government.  It's amazing to me how many people still don't understand that basic point. There is a chapter in the ARRB Final Report that discusses the search for non-governmental JFKA records.  The Zapruder film, taken from the family and now at NARA, is just one example. 

The museum has *not* become accepted as THE repository of film evidence by anyone who knows what they're talking about.  Why do you think the MFF filed a lawsuit to get NARA to live up to its responsibility in keeping the JFKA Collection it houses up to date.  As the law requires.

You're citing an ideal. The fact is that hundreds of important documents and interviews remained in private possession after the passage of the ARRB, and none of the politicians involved in its creation gave a crap. And the fact is also that since the ARRB numerous pieces of filmed evidence have been gifted or sold to the Sixth Floor Museum, which has become the repository for the filmed evidence, as well as hundreds of oral histories.

 I find it far more problematic that the ARRB failed to pursue the hundreds of filmed interviews conducted by CBS, or by William Manchester, etc. These were interviews that indisputably may have illuminated our understanding of certain aspects of the case. And yet they were not obtained. 

The failure to obtain the original copies of a film that had been shown on TV was a minor violation of the spirit of the law, in comparison. IMO. 

P.S. On an unrelated point, the Sixth Floor Museum is far more approachable to researchers than the Archives, in general. While people like Lifton thought they were doing their patriotic duty by gifting their interviews to the archives, those interviews have been buried and are largely unavailable absent the outlay of serious cash. While at the same time the Sixth Floor Museum has presented tons of material on their website, or made this material available for a nominal fee. For example, I have purchased DVDs and transcripts of witness interviews from the museum for 5 and 10 dollars, when the archives charged me 20 dollars for a transcript of an interview and said I could pay an outside firm to copy and send a filmed interview for 70 dollars--and that was 20 years ago. 

Edited Sunday at 10:38 PM by Pat Speer

[Denis Morissette]

Do you really believe that the original film shows that crappy? Certainly not on 11/22. 

[Roger Odisio]

33 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You're citing an ideal. The fact is that hundreds of important documents and interviews remained in private possession after the passage of the ARRB, and none of the politicians involved in its creation gave a crap. And the fact is also that since the ARRB numerous pieces of filmed evidence have been gifted or sold to the Sixth Floor Museum, which has become the repository for the filmed evidence, as well as hundreds of oral histories.

 I find it far more problematic that the ARRB failed to pursue the hundreds of filmed interviews conducted by CBS, or by William Manchester, etc. These were interviews that indisputably may have illuminated our understanding of certain aspects of the case. And yet they were not obtained. 

The failure to obtain the original copies of a film that had been shown on TV was a minor violation of the spirit of the law, in comparison. IMO. 

P.S. On an unrelated point, the Sixth Floor Museum is far more approachable to researchers than the Archives, in general. While people like Lifton thought they were doing their patriotic duty by gifting their interviews to the archives, those interviews have been buried and are largely unavailable absent the outlay of serious cash. While at the same time the Sixth Floor Museum has presented tons of material on their website, or made this material for a nominal fee. For example, I have purchased DVDs and transcripts of witness interviews from the museum for 5 and 10 dollars, when the archives charged me 20 dollars for a transcript of an interview and said I could pay an outside firm to copy and send a filmed interview for 70 dollars--and that was 20 years ago. 

I'm citing the law, Pat, not an ideal.

No one, least of all me, is arguing that the politicians who passed the JFKA Act, unanimously btw,  were all salivating to get to the bottom of the murder.  They were reacting to constituent anger at what Stone's film showed, and particularly at the end, when he revealed much of the outstanding  information could be kept from them until 2039, for 48 more years, when a lot of the adults would likely be dead.

The Board's job was originally supposed to end in 1995 because enough of the politicians didn't want anything like a permanent bureaucracy created.  But the definition of record wasn't finalized until the summer of that year, and the Board's life was ultimately extended until '98. Many records still remained outside the Collection when the ARRB closed, not just those in private hands.  And many more have surfaced since.

Again, the MFF filed their lawsuit to try to force NARA to do the job they are mandated to do under the JFKA Act to collect all of those records.  See Section 12 (b) of the Act requiring the Archivist to notify Congress and the President when all JFKA records had been collected and released to the public.  Which has been ignored, even by Judge Seeborg, so far.

The fact that some evidence has been gifted or sold to the museum, rather than to the Collection at NARA, proves nothing.  It establishes nothing about the rightful place for that information under the law.  It does not allow you to claim that museum is now THE place for those records, as you do again here.

However, perhaps you've inadvertently uncovered one motivation for NBC sending a version of the Darnell film to the museum instead of the NARA, after hiding it for 60+ years.

[Denis Morissette]

Just received from Stephen Faggin of the 6FM. Unfortunately, and obviously, the YouTube video doesn’t show the original film or even a first generation. A 3rd or 4th, probably. 

 

Thanks for your e-mail. We know there has been some interest in the Museum’s recent YouTube upload, and we are so pleased to be able to finally share the Darnell film online considering the researcher interest over the years. To clarify, the Museum does not have the camera original Darnell film. To our knowledge, if that film still exists, it is with NBC in New York. What we have is a print of the film that originally came to the Museum as part of the G. William Jones Collection back in 2006. Since the Museum did not have the rights from the local NBC affiliate (NBC 5 / KXAS-TV) to use the WBAP-TV footage in the Jones Collection, we were not able to do anything with the films without KXAS’s permission for specific projects. This changed only recently when NBC 5 / KXAS-TV generously donated their assassination-related footage to the Museum—and included rights to the WBAP-TV footage already in the Museum’s Jones Collection, which includes our print of the Darnell film. The late Gary Mack speculated that our copy of the Darnell film was a first-generation print of the film and shared this belief with researchers many years ago. I was twice asked about this same print of the Darnell film at JFK Lancer conferences, and I noted at that time that we could not be certain that it was a first-generation print. That is still the case. So, again, this is the same print that has been in the Museum’s possession since 2006. We simply now have the rights to share it publicly. What we put online is an excerpt from the digitization of the film, so the quality is as it appears. It is the same transfer that researchers were previously able to view by appointment in the Museum’s Reading Room.

[Denis Morissette]

It is the copy they’ve had since 2006 and that is available for viewing at the Researcher’s Room.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Denis Morissette said:

It is the copy they’ve had since 2006 and that is available for viewing at the Researcher’s Room.

In other words, it certainly has not been "altered" within the past few years for the purposes of embarrassing specific researchers, as has been claimed..

[Denis Morissette]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

In other words, it certainly has not been "altered" within the past few years for the purposes of embarrassing specific researchers, as has been claimed..

Of course not. 😂

[Jonathan Cohen]

37 minutes ago, Denis Morissette said:

Of course not. 😂

Great. So now maybe Sandy Larsen can retract his falsehoods about said alteration?