Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder alteration - possible?


Recommended Posts

Len,

This is a very informative email I received from a friend earlier this year, who forwarded it to me, regarding Ryan:

(I've "bolded" it to set it apart from what I've written)

From: GaryM@jfk.org

To: XXXXX@aol.com

Sent: 4/16/2009 6:39:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time

Subj: RE: Dr. Roderick Ryan

According to Noel Twyman's 1997 "Bloody Treason" book, Roderick Ryan was shown many frames from the Zapruder film and he issued several opinions supporting the possibility of alteration. Twyman's interviews with Ryan took place mostly from 1993-1995.

In 1999, Ryan and many other film scientists were invited to the National Archives to examine the camera original Zapruder film. Their purpose was to advise NARA about the latest thinking and technology concerning film preservation issues.

At that meeting, two attendees - Kodak scientist Roland Zavada and researcher Richard Trask - questioned Ryan about his alteration beliefs. According to both men, who repeated the details to me, Ryan admitted he was never told that alteration was thought to have happened over the weekend of the assassination or, at the most, within a few days.

Ryan insisted to Zavada and Trask that such changes, while technically possible, in his opinion, would have taken months to accomplish and they would still likely have been detectable. So based on the timing issue, Ryan, who is now deceased, recanted his opinion that the Zapruder film was possibly altered.

Gary Mack

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Len,

This is a very informative email I received from a friend earlier this year, who forwarded it to me, regarding Ryan:

(I've "bolded" it to set it apart from what I've written)

From: GaryM@jfk.org

To: XXXXX@aol.com

Sent: 4/16/2009 6:39:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time

Subj: RE: Dr. Roderick Ryan

According to Noel Twyman's 1997 "Bloody Treason" book, Roderick Ryan was shown many frames from the Zapruder film and he issued several opinions supporting the possibility of alteration. Twyman's interviews with Ryan took place mostly from 1993-1995.

In 1999, Ryan and many other film scientists were invited to the National Archives to examine the camera original Zapruder film. Their purpose was to advise NARA about the latest thinking and technology concerning film preservation issues.

At that meeting, two attendees - Kodak scientist Roland Zavada and researcher Richard Trask - questioned Ryan about his alteration beliefs. According to both men, who repeated the details to me, Ryan admitted he was never told that alteration was thought to have happened over the weekend of the assassination or, at the most, within a few days.

Ryan insisted to Zavada and Trask that such changes, while technically possible, in his opinion, would have taken months to accomplish and they would still likely have been detectable. So based on the timing issue, Ryan, who is now deceased, recanted his opinion that the Zapruder film was possibly altered.

Gary Mack

simple Zapruder film frame alteration was completed by Feb-1964. (lest we forget the ONLY client viewing the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film was the Warren Commission, collectively, they saw the film late Feb 1964...)

There were years and years available (after the initial frame alteration) for in-depth alteration....

Gary should get off his rear-end and head for Hollyweird, that place where, when it comes to film--anything, ANYTHING is possible.... all Gary's nutter-xxxxx hanger-oners are doing him a serious dis-service....

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

David owns the copyright to his chapter, not I. It is inconceivable that a serious student of this case would not already own THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which presents many more proofs of fabrication than David provides in his excellent chapter. If you don't own it, then you really don't know what you are talking about. Why does this come as no surprise? You would rather bullxxxx than study the case.

Bill in Melanson's information there are many questions regarding whether they had the original.or what copy.....in the book ''THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX '' I recall in David Lifton's Pig On A Leash in his article there are several pages on Lilian Zapruder.information and his contacting her .I do not have the book handy so i cannot quote nor give you the page numbers, but i do recall reading that david had i think a couple of telephne conversations with her i believe and i do think he mentions he taped them, but anyway she told him that Abraham simply gave it to them the film...the authourities i think feds were mentioned.not sure from memory....have a look and see what he and she had to say..it may clarify this part..or help to...best b...

Thanks Bernice,

Only half of "Pig on a Leash" is no line, and I've asked Prof. Fetzer if he would post the entire chapter but he would rather argue about anything than actually provide the chapter that is cited by Doug Horne.

I've been told to get a copy of the second edition rather than the first, because there are significant changes.

As soon as I get a copy I will copy or retype the entire chapter and post it for research purposes.

If anyone knows David Lifton, perphaps he will send me or post a complete text of his "Pig on a Leash."

As David Healy also notes, Lifton's talk is posted at Youtube in 10 minute segements and among those eight or so segments is the references to the "Hawkeye Works."

I will transcribe that segment when I get my computer sound back, if someone will tell me which one it is.

BK

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

This is a very informative email I received from a friend earlier this year, who forwarded it to me, regarding Ryan:

(I've "bolded" it to set it apart from what I've written)

From: GaryM@jfk.org

To: XXXXX@aol.com

Sent: 4/16/2009 6:39:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time

Subj: RE: Dr. Roderick Ryan

According to Noel Twyman's 1997 "Bloody Treason" book, Roderick Ryan was shown many frames from the Zapruder film and he issued several opinions supporting the possibility of alteration. Twyman's interviews with Ryan took place mostly from 1993-1995.

In 1999, Ryan and many other film scientists were invited to the National Archives to examine the camera original Zapruder film. Their purpose was to advise NARA about the latest thinking and technology concerning film preservation issues.

At that meeting, two attendees - Kodak scientist Roland Zavada and researcher Richard Trask - questioned Ryan about his alteration beliefs. According to both men, who repeated the details to me, Ryan admitted he was never told that alteration was thought to have happened over the weekend of the assassination or, at the most, within a few days.

Ryan insisted to Zavada and Trask that such changes, while technically possible, in his opinion, would have taken months to accomplish and they would still likely have been detectable. So based on the timing issue, Ryan, who is now deceased, recanted his opinion that the Zapruder film was possibly altered.

Gary Mack

How is that recanting his opinion?

I agree with David Healy 100% that the Febuary 1964 date was when the first parts of frame alteration were completed

That falls in line with Ryans statement to Trask and Zavada (if a statement to them was even ever made) that it would have taken months

That Email from Gary proves nothing Kathy, in fact it does not change Ryans opinion one bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with David Healy 100% that the Febuary 1964 date was when the first parts of frame alteration were completed

Oh, I was under the impression that all of this debate had to do with the Zfilm being changed that weekend or shortly thereafter.

Wonder why it took months?Gee, maybe they didn't get it right the first time--as technically astute as they were you'd think it wouldn't take so long.

BTW, I have no doubt in my mind that Ryan told that to Trask and Zavada. There would be no reason for them to lie about it. Their credibility is fine with me.

Kathy

Bloody Treason is supposed to be released as an ebook soon, if it hasn't been already:

http://noeltwyman.com/BloodyTreason.html

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I was under the impression that all of this debate had to do with the Zfilm being changed that weekend or shortly thereafter.

Who gave you that impression?

Have you read (or bought) TGZFH yet?

If not buy it and read David Healys excellent chapter, that will tell you what you need to know about how long it took to alter the Z-film

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Start typing!

Well a simple please might make me want to do it

But ordering me to type it all out is not going to get me all pumped up to do it

And its X-mas

Give me some time and ask nicely and I will see what I can do

Sorry if you thought it was an 'order' it was meant to be jocular. I wouldn't have though someone whose hero is a sociopathic killer would be so sensitive :ph34r:. Yes I would appreciate you typing that up but don't forget you would be doing so for yourself as much as for me.

You could also try taking photos of the pages. make sure lighting is even and the 'film plane' is as parallel to the pages as possible. Some old 35mm-med. format tripods can be used as impromptu copy stands.

"That Email from Gary proves nothing Kathy, in fact it does not change Ryans opinion one bit"

Except that Horne and others claim the fake Z-film was ready that night or a few days later and you seem to have failed to notice this bit,"Ryan insisted to Zavada and Trask that such changes, while technically possible, in his opinion, would have taken months to accomplish and they would still likely have been detectable. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Start typing!

Well a simple please might make me want to do it

But ordering me to type it all out is not going to get me all pumped up to do it

And its X-mas

Give me some time and ask nicely and I will see what I can do

Sorry if you thought it was an 'order' it was meant to be jocular. I wouldn't have though someone whose hero is a sociopathic killer would be so sensitive :blink:. Yes I would appreciate you typing that up but don't forget you would be doing so for yourself as much as for me.

You could also try taking photos of the pages. make sure lighting is even and the 'film plane' is as parallel to the pages as possible. Some old 35mm-med. format tripods can be used as impromptu copy stands.

"That Email from Gary proves nothing Kathy, in fact it does not change Ryans opinion one bit"

Except that Horne and others claim the fake Z-film was ready that night or a few days later and you seem to have failed to notice this bit,"Ryan insisted to Zavada and Trask that such changes, while technically possible, in his opinion, would have taken months to accomplish and they would still likely have been detectable. "

I didnt see that you were being jocular, my fault for being to sensitive, then again when you say that my hero was a sociopathic killer that might be a little stretch, I mean Karpis was like Robin Hood, he just never gave to the poor :ph34r:

I will try taking pictures right now

And Doug Horne (and others, what other alterationists I would love to know) said it was altered completety that night? Did I miss that? If so where was it posted? I have always subscribed to David healys time frame of alteration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with David Healy 100% that the Febuary 1964 date was when the first parts of frame alteration were completed

Oh, I was under the impression that all of this debate had to do with the Zfilm being changed that weekend or shortly thereafter.

Wonder why it took months?Gee, maybe they didn't get it right the first time--as technically astute as they were you'd think it wouldn't take so long.

BTW, I have no doubt in my mind that Ryan told that to Trask and Zavada. There would be no reason for them to lie about it. Their credibility is fine with me.

Kathy

Bloody Treason is supposed to be released as an ebook soon, if it hasn't been already:

http://noeltwyman.com/BloodyTreason.html

keep up girl, Bill Miller still have you confounded? It appears nutter-trolls are in a tizzy over Doug Horne... :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that Horne and others claim the fake Z-film was ready that night or a few days later and you seem to have failed to notice this bit,"Ryan insisted to Zavada and Trask that such changes, while technically possible, in his opinion, would have taken months to accomplish and they would still likely have been detectable. "

And Doug Horne (and others, what other alterationists I would love to know) said it was altered completety that night? Did I miss that? If so where was it posted? I have always subscribed to David healys time frame of alteration

The original alterationist party line was that the film was altered that night or that weekend. IIRC Costella said it was done in time to be picked up from Zappy’s safe Saturday morning. After people pointed out this was unrealistically fast Healy came up with his time frame.

Horne of course theorizes that the film that McMahon and Hunter worked on that weekend was the altered version. The former, his ‘star witness’, said they got it Friday night, the latter whose version in no way supports the alterationists said it was Sunday. Horne established that the existing briefing board panels were from the images processed by the two, IIRC Hunter even recognized his initials on the back of them. So we have images from Life and the boards that at best (worst?) came from a quickie alteration done in a couple of days or more likely hours. Show me where Costella or Horne said they thought the film was further altered at a later date.

As for Karpis,you do know who he taught to 'sing' and play guitar? I can't throw stones though considering some of the folks I hung out with!:)

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with David Healy 100% that the Febuary 1964 date was when the first parts of frame alteration were completed

Oh, I was under the impression that all of this debate had to do with the Zfilm being changed that weekend or shortly thereafter.

Wonder why it took months?Gee, maybe they didn't get it right the first time--as technically astute as they were you'd think it wouldn't take so long.

BTW, I have no doubt in my mind that Ryan told that to Trask and Zavada. There would be no reason for them to lie about it. Their credibility is fine with me.

Kathy

Bloody Treason is supposed to be released as an ebook soon, if it hasn't been already:

http://noeltwyman.com/BloodyTreason.html

keep up girl, Bill Miller still have you confounded? It appears nutter-trolls are in a tizzy over Doug Horne... :)

Mr. Healy,

You certainly don't help your side by posting such tripe.I saw your presentation on you tube, and on there you appear to be a reasonable person. Perhaps that is the way you should conduct yourself here. This "nutter xxxxx, ROFLMFAO" posting style does nothing but break up the thread continuity. Is that your purpose?

I am not a LN xxxxx, and I never have been. Reasonable, rational discussion is what matters.

As for what you say about me, you couldn't be more wrong.It is important to read as much as one can, and make one's own decision. Mine belongs to me. Bill does not make up my mind, nor do folks with Ph D's.

I happen to think Doug Horne is a great guy, but that has nothing to do with his research. I'll have his books on order soon, (and would get them anyway,aside from any theories, as I like to see "the story behind the story") and will certainly post anything I have come up with.

BTW, are you officially stating that you have now seen proof of alteration? Before you have posted that you were unsure.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that Horne and others claim the fake Z-film was ready that night or a few days later and you seem to have failed to notice this bit,"Ryan insisted to Zavada and Trask that such changes, while technically possible, in his opinion, would have taken months to accomplish and they would still likely have been detectable. "

And Doug Horne (and others, what other alterationists I would love to know) said it was altered completety that night? Did I miss that? If so where was it posted? I have always subscribed to David healys time frame of alteration

The original alterationist party line was that the film was altered that night or that weekend. IIRC Costella said it was done in time to be picked up from Zappy’s safe Saturday morning. After people pointed out this was unrealistically fast Healy came up with his time frame.

Horne of course theorizes that the film that McMahon and Hunter worked on that weekend was the altered version. The former, his ‘star witness’, said they got it Friday night, the latter whose version in no way supports the alterationists said it was Sunday. Horne established that the existing briefing board panels were from the images processed by the two, IIRC Hunter even recognized his initials on the back of them. So we have images from Life and the boards that at best (worst?) came from a quickie alteration done in a couple of days or more likely hours. Show me where Costella or Horne said they thought the film was further altered at a later date.

As for Karpis,you do know who he taught to 'sing' and play guitar? I can't throw stones though considering some of the folks I hung out with!:)

Karpis tought Manson to sing and play guitar

And again I do not back Costella, so I dont have anything to show you

As for Doug Horne let me read his books first then we can talk about the dates and time frames

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Lifton

In his article Pig On A Leash wrote:

Although the starting point is usually some theory about Dallas, the issue inevitably comes down to

dealing with those who control access to that film, the money which always changes hands in connection with the film, and the issue of greed connected with that cinematic item. The Zapruder film, as everyone knows, is a home movie of President Kennedy, his wounding, and what happened at each split second—but, when it comes to discussing and illustrating any of this publicly in connection with a book, article, or documentary film, one soon arrives at a financial crossroads of sorts, and learns that it comes down to the issue of—oink oink—money. And, depending on the exact purpose or use of the film, very substantial sums of money at that.

I've grown rather cynical over the years, particularly in connection with the use of the film and with those who control access to this film.

The public had seen some of these frames in Life magazine on three occasions, twice in color. The 29 November 1963 issue of Life—the first published after JFK's death—had contained a series of some 30 vblack and white frames. Then, on 7 Dec 1963, LIFE published the "John F. Kennedy Memorial Edition" which contained nine enlarged Zapruder frames, in color. The third LIFE issue to contain Zapruder frames—five small color frames on the cover, eight enlarged color frames inside—was dated 2 October 1964, and published within days of the release of the Warren Report.

All there was were selected still frames in three issues of Life magazine—that was it. And the American people were very interested in those issues. According to court documents, "The three weekly issues of Life and its Memorial Edition, each containing Zapruder frames, had a total distribution of over 23,750,000 copies. Weekly issues of Life, published outside the United States and containing Zapruder frames, had a circulation of over 3 million copies."1 The Zapruder film—in its entirety and as a movie film—was not available to the American public.

Several researchers went to the National Archives to see this for themselves, in motion.n Visitors who viewed the Zapruder film at the National Archives were in for amshock: the film seemed to show JFK being struck from the front, at least in the head. The rapid backward motion of JFK's head contradicted the autopsy Conclusion — or so it seemed — and that was a shocker. Thomas Stamm was one of the earliest researchers to visit the Archives, and circulated a brief written description: it was as if JFK was hit from the front by an invisible baseball bat, he said.

CIA 450: Discovery by Paul Hoch

Around March, 1976, JFK researcher Paul Hoch, perusing a batch of recently released CIA documents, discovered CIA item 450, a multi-page document with data arranged in tabular form, apparently devoted to an analysis of the Zapruder film and the creation of certain briefing materials requiring that 28 color photos be made from selected frames of a Kodachrome positive of the Zapruder film. CIA 450 established that "the film"—we'll discuss just "which film" (or copy) it was—had been at the National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, shortly after the assassination. NPIC is one of the most sophisticated photo labs in the world, and played a major role in processing and interpreting U-2 spyplane films that played such a significant role in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Prior to Hoch's discovery, there was no reason to connect the Z film with NPIC.

The document apparently described the contents of four briefing boards — labeled "Panel 1", "Panel 2" "Panel 3" and "Panel 4", each consisting of between six and eight Zapruder frames, for a total of 28 frames. The prints, distributed amongst the four boards, were numbered from 1 through 28. (See "Appendix C, and the item titled "NPIC Typed Summary for Preparing a Briefing Board.") These briefing boards were apparently used to illustrate some kind of presentation. Another sheet—apparently on legal size paper, again, with the same 28 frame numbers arrayed in multiple columns—was a shot and timing analysis, i.e., notes explaining the assassination in terms of several different 3 shot scenarios. One of these was labeled "Life Magazine" and the others were simply labeled "Other possibilities." In the Life column, two terse phrases used to describe the time intervals between shots –"74 frames later" and "48 frames after that" (each listed along with quotation marks)—were identical with phrases used in LIFE writer Paul Mandel's article, "End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds," which appeared in two issues of LIFE—the 6 December 1963 issue, and the "JFK Memorial Issue" published on 7 December 63. Was the CIA supplying Life with data? Or did the agency have the film later on, and was it reading Life for its information. (See Appendix C, item titled "NPIC working notes related to a shot sequence analysis") Whatever the exact explanation, suffice it to say that previously unreported CIA possession of the Zapruder film was an important discovery. It raised the question of whether the CIA had the film prior to or in connection with, its sale to LIFE.

The ARRB

Whether you agree with Garrison or not (and I did not), the most enduring consequence of the movie JFK was the passage of the JFK Records Act and the creation of the ARRB. When the board was first created, I was invited to the "expert's conference" and met David Marwell and Jeremy Gunn for the first time. I learned that both had read my book but took different positions on questions of authencity of the evidence. Marwell, a friend of Posner, leaned more towards the "lone nutter" position; Jeremy Gunn seemed more open to such ideas as alteration of the body, Zapruder film inauthenticity, etc.—which is not to say his beliefs accorded with mine in these areas, just that he seemed open to having such matters investigated.

Meanwhile, in what was a major break for me, Douglas Horne, a former Naval officer who was a strong supporter of my work, applied from Honolulu for a position with the ARRB and was accepted. Horne eventually became "Chief Analyst for Military Records"—a fairly high position at the ARRB—and his presence on the staff along with his dogged determination to further investigate many of the mysteries surrounding the autopsy, had a definite effect in shaping the ARRB's work in the medical area. New documents were located, witnesses whom I had interviewed were called to testify, and since the ARRB wanted to see some of my own materials, I had quite a bit of contact with the ARRB, often with Horne, but also with Marwell and Gunn....

...In phone calls with ARRB staffers, I noted that Groden seemed to think he owned anything he had copied, or enlarged. My memo ended with: "You are facing a formidable opponent. Good luck." When it was over, the Review Board staff had in its possession a document that provided a complete bird's eye view of how motion picture duplication worked, and the role Robert Groden and Weitzman's lab had played over the years in JFK assassination research. I was asked to testify to the ARRB in September 1996 at a public hearing in Los Angeles, and when the Washington hearing was held some months later, and I turned on my TV to watch, I almost fell out of my chair when Judge Tunheim thanked all the citizens who had sent in helpful material and particularly singled me out and thanked me by name. Meanwhile, the Board decided it was going to need expert assistance if it was to navigate the sticky wicket of certain film issues. The Board turned to Kodak for assistance. There are several matters that must be discussed—if only briefly—if one is to get a birds-eye view of the ARRB's work in the area of the bystander films taken in Dealey Plaza. Not necessarily in chronological order, they are:

• The ARRB and CIA Document 450;

• The ARRB deposition of Robert Groden;

• The ARRB and the matter of designating the Z film as an "assassination

record";

• The ARRB's attempt to deal with the matter of authenticity;

• Zavada's investigation of the camera's "claw shadow", which led to his

shooting certain test films

• Doug Horne's discovery, from Zavada's data, of the "full flush left" problem

in May 1999, six months after the Board closed shop.

The ARRB and CIA Document 450

The reader will recall that back around 1976, Paul Hoch made the discovery of CIA Document 450, which suggested—at first sight—that the Zapruder film had gone to the CIA's National Photo Interpretation Center, prior to going to Life. Initially, the issue seemed to be whether NPIC had anything to do with processing the Zapruder film—which, if so, seemed rather peculiar, since the film had already been processed at the Kodak plant in Dallas. So that in turn, led to various hypotheses as to whether the NPIC photo lab in Washington perhaps had something to do with altering the film, altering the Zapruder film and the issue was whether it went in its pristine condition, and was then altered or went there after it had been altered and if so, what was it doing at NPIC?

As it turned out, nothing of the kind was so. Two CIA employees were located who had been at NPIC—Homer McMahon, head of the NPIC color lab, and his assistant Ben Hunter—and the story behind the creation of the NPIC documents, which at first appeared so mysterious—gradually clarified. The documents had nothing to do with the creation of a movie film, but rather with the processed of some 28 selected frames from a film positive (indeed, a 16 mm Kodachrome, supposedly the "original") which was brought to NPIC — either on Saturday or Sunday night on the assassination weekend — by a Secret Service agent who said he had just come from Rochester, from a classified film facility there run by Kodak, and where the Kodachrome he was transporting had been processed. The agent's name was "Smith", the ARRB was never able to identify who "Smith" was, and the events described by McMahon definitely took place (according to McMahon) prior to the JFK's funeral, which would mean either Saturday night or Sunday night. The NPIC lab was requested to make color

prints from selected single frames — supposedly for use in creating briefing boards. Twenty-eight frames were selected (according to the McMahon paperwork). Moreover, said McMahon, Agent Smith had said the entire matter was to be treated as "higher than 'top secret'" and even his own supervisor was not permitted to know about this activity.

The ARRB interviews established that the film—as a motion picture film—had not been processed at NPIC in Washington, and that a series of notations about processing times and the number of prints to be made had nothing to do with motion picture photography, but the creation of a series of 28 color prints from selected motion picture film frames. Although that mystery was resolved, the McMahon account raised serious questions about the chain of possession of the original film. That film — a 16 mm Kodachrome (with the assassination on Side had been processed in Dallas, at Kodak, on the afternoon of the assassination. Further, it had left Zapruder's possession on Saturday morning, when he made his initial deal with LIFE (in the amount of $50,000) and then turned over "the original" plus his third copy to LIFE representative Stolly. Yet here was McMahon, reporting that Agent Smith had arrived with a Kodachrome, saying he had come from Rochester, and the film he was carrying had been processed at "Hawkeyeworks."

Since the briefing boards prepared with McMahon's stills carry Zapruder frame numbers which are apparently from the film which (today) we call "the Zapruder film," the question arises as to whether the source item was the Kodachrome which McMahon was working with for several hours that long night, and just what was its origin. The Zapruder film—i.e., the actual Kodachrome film exposed in Zapruder's camera — had been processed at the Kodak plant in Dallas. Kodachrome requireda very special processing plant. There were only some half dozen such Kodachrome facilities in the U.S., and the question had been: where could a Kodachrome copy of Zapruder's film — i.e. a Kodachrome which would subsequently be paraded about as an original, but which was in fact a copy — have been processed? Certainly not in Dallas. Now a new possibility was emerging: that a Kodachrome processor was located either at Kodak's headquarters in Rochester or at Hawkeyeworks, and that's where the Kodachrome brought to MacMahon might have been processed.

McMahon was certain he had an original. From Horne's ARRB Report: Horne asked whether he was working with the original film or a copy, and McMahon stated with some certainty tht he was "sure we had the original film." Horne asked why,and he said that he was sure it was the original because it was Kodachrome, and because it was a "double 8"movie. Horne asked him to clarify whether the home movie was slit or unslit, and McMahon said that he was pretty sure the film was UNSLIT, because "we had to flip it over to see the image on the other side in the correct orientation. (Horne Call Report, 6/12/97; See Appendix C)There was another twist: what happened when Doug wanted to pursue the matter, pull 1963 records, and question people as to whether the Z film had been at Rochester. His requests were simply refused—flatly refused—and without explanation. Moreover, from multiple sources, I learned what occurred when the CIA found out that the word "Hawkeyeworks"—a classified term—had been mentioned by one of its employees in an ARRB interview: the order went out to change the record. The ARRB was notified that the name was still classified, so it would have to be expunged. Doug was given the job of editing the audio tape record of the interview, and deleting any mention of the secret facility by its classified codename. This he did, writing the appropriate memo to make the fact a matter of record.

The ARRB's Final Report accurately reported the important fact that what was done in Washington, D.C., at NPIC's color lab, was simply the creation of color stills, but left out the related drama of Hawkeyeworks and the CIA's insistence that the term be deleted. The Final Report said:Review Board Staff's Study and Clarification of Paul Hoch's FOIA Lead "CIADocument 450." The Review Board staff located and interviewed two former

employees of the CIA' s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) and questioned them about " C I A Document 450," a 1970s Freedom Of Information Act release-original document undated-that indicates NPIC had a version of the Zapruder film, made "internegatives" and "copies," conducted a "print test," and performed a shot-and-timing analysis based on interpretation of the film's content.

The ARRB and the Matter of Z Film Authenticity

The ARRB faced a daunting task. The decision was made to turn to Kodak for technical advice, and Doug Horne was asked to draft a memo about Zapruder film inauthenticity — listing those specific reasons why some in the research community believed the Zapruder film was inauthentic. During that period, in connection with many requests being made of me by the ARRB, I had quite bit of contact with them. Back then, it seemed evident that Jeremy Gunn was open to the idea of Zapruder film inauthenticity; he seemed willing to see it properly explored. That's when I wrote my memo about Groden, and Doug joked that I was the ARRB's "unpaid consultant."

The Left Margin Issue—Initial Considerations

One of the arguments Groden had made was that the film had to be anoriginal because there was "material between the sprocket holes." Although critical of Gorden in many area, I concede the man has spent many hours at an optical printer, and when I first heard this line of argument I had no ready answer.

In a nutshell: When an optical printer is used to make a copy, the area between the sprocket holes is normally masked. So a duplicate has the following appearance: a series of frames, one after another after another, with the sprocket holes off to one side. So, if one were handed a film and asked whether it was a "camera original" or a duplicate, a quick determination could be made by simply checking whether there was image in the sprocket hole area. If so, that would suggest it was a camera original; if devoid of such image—i.e., if it was pitch black and just contained sprocket holes—then the film would appear to be a dupe.

So much for analysis; let's now turn the problem around view the problem posed by the intersprocket hole area to anyone attempting to create an 8mmforgery. If an optical printer normally creates a duplicate without material between the sprockets, then wouldn't the absence of image there be a dead giveaway? Yes, it would. So for it to appear to be an original, somehow and in some way, such intersprocket image would have to be created; otherwise, it would be obvious the film was a copy, and not an original. What to do? Or, more accurately, what might have been done? It should now be clear why the existence of this margin on the Zapruder film "which looks different" appeared so worthy of investigation. This intersprocket area is readily visible in the poor black and white reproductions that are in Volume 18 of the Warren Commission 26 volumes (Commission Exhibit 885). In frame after frame, the image extends well into the sprocket hole area, and the contrast is different, too: its as if there was a piece of Magic Mending Tape running down the left hand side of the film. As to the actual original film—kept at the National Archives—Doug Horne had the opportunity to see it on more than one occasion and told me what it looked like in color: t running down the edge, in the sprocket hole area, the film has a different tint. So, from the outset, the "intersprocket area" became the focus of any study

regarding authenticity.

Kodak Retained

Kodak was contacted by the ARRB and agreed to provide $20k of pro bono work, and a choice had to be made: would these resources go towards investigating the autopsy pictures, or doing a full scale digital scan of the Zapruder film? The former was chosen; as to the Z film, it was far from ignored: Kodak assigned Rolland Zavada, a film chemist who was extremely knowledgable about 8mm photography to assist.

From the ARRB's FINAL REPORT:

Eastman Kodak's Pro Bono Work for the Review Board Related to the Zapruder Film (and Autopsy Photographs). The Review Board first met with the Eastman Kodak Company in June 1996 in Washington to discuss a wide variety of possible research topics related to a host of potential film issues. The Review Board . . . subsequently met with Kodak technical experts James Milch and Roland Zavada in Washington, D.C. At that meeting, the Review Board identified three major areas of interest, only one of which related to the Zapruder film: the possible digitization and enhancement of the Zapruder film, as well as edge print analysis of the original and first generation copies,and study of the optical characteristics of the Zapruder camera . . .in relation to perceived "anomalies" in the original film. And shortly thereafter, appears this passage in the same Final Report, that the ARRB received assistance from Kodak to "explain the relationship, if any, between the camera's operating characteristics and perceived "anomalies" in the original film." Zavada got to work, setting out to investigate the "anomalies" in the left margin.

Rollie Zvada was nothing if not energetic. He went out and purchased five Zapruder-type cameras. As he explained to me later, he lucked out in one instance. A relative provided a camera that was 30 digits away from the serial number of Zapruders'. Rollie calculated that meant the camera was manufactured within an hour of Zapruder's. That was impressive. Seeking to understand exactly how the camera worked, he took one of his five cameras and disassembled it. It was, as he liked to say in conversation, "in pieces."

With the other four, he intended to do tests. Ultimately, Rollie's investigation ran several hundred pages, but there are three matters worth mentioning at this juncture. Zavada's initial reaction to the Intersprocket Area

What pupports to be the Zapruder "out of camera" original is stored under the appropropriate refrigerated condition at the National Archives. Zavada got a good look at that actual original for the first time when he wanted to photograph it, in order to investigate the intersprocket area. When the film was taken out, various senior Archive officials were present, because the Zapruder film was one of the most important artifacts stored at the Archives. Doug was standing right there and recently recounted to me Zavada's initial reaction unpon examining the left margin area, with its bluish tint. "This really looks strange to me. I can't explain this," Rollie kept saying "This looks strange." A man is entitled to change his opinion, and that is part of the Rollie story,

but Doug was a witness to his initial reaction. Meanwhile, Zavada was hearing a lot from Doug concerning suspicions about inautheniticity, and Rollie made one suggestion that was very important. Zavada's Suggestion about "cutting into" one frame Doug remembered that Rollie on more than one occasion mentioned "cutting into" the Zapruder film, snipping out one frame, and doing some kind of chemical test. His concern seemed to center around exactly what kind of film it was, said, Doug. "He kept talking 'kelvin', 'kelvin' 'kelvin'." Until Octrober, Doug didn't quite understand just what it was that Rollie was getting at, but that is a subject we shall revisit soon. Suffice it to point out that Abe Zapruder filmed the assassination on Kodachrome "outdoor" film, known as "Kodachrome II." K-II has a film speed of ASA 25, and is color balanced for light from the sun. Kodachrome also makes an indoor film—Kodachrome IIA—which is ASA 40. More significantly, it is "color balanced" so it responds optimally to an artifical light source.

If the Zapruder film was a sophisticated forgery, then it would be likely—not absolutely necessary—that the Kodachrome II-A would be used to make the final forgery, i.e., "indoor" film, i.e., K-IIA, not K-II would be used—the reason being that the illumination when the final product was created, would be the light bulb in an optical printer, not the sun. For Zavada to even make such a suggestion shows that he is one very smart guy, and, more important, apparentnly had some suspicions and had engaged in enough thinking "outside the box" to come up with a "thought experiment" for a quick test to see if this kind of hanky panky was going on. The dyes in K-II and K-IIA are different, and Zavada broached the suggestion (to Doug, at Least) that a single frame of the film be snipped for use with a spectrometer. The frame Doug had in mind was one of the thirteen at the beginning of the film. It would not be history's loss if there was one less frame (than the 13 already there) of Zapruder's secretary sitting in the pergola, before the motorcade appeared. Doug told me what happened.

For David Marwell, it was completely out of the question; and ridiculous. As for Gunn, he rolled his eyes in disbelief. The fact is: this test is perfectly sensible. If the emulsion and the dyes check out, that wouldn't prove it was authentic, but should they be shown to be "indoor film," then that would constitute dispositive evidence of forgery. It is truly unfortunate that the "good Rollie" came up with this idea, and yet doing it was completely out of the question. Meanwhile, Rollie had good reason for his suspicions, and they extended beyond some lunchtime conversation with doug, and were rooted in what he larned from his own interviews with those who had been on duty at Kodak when the out-of-camera original was processed. Meanwhile, the Zapruder family was at work, creating a new product that would be available starting in the fall of 1998.

Horne Requests Test with Orignial Camera

Doug Horne knew what needed to be done: that film should be run through the Zapruder camera, in a test conducted at Dealey Plaza, preferably when the lighting was the same, and such test film be compared with the Zapruder film. It didn't take a photo expert to understand why this should be done: a match between the test film and the Zapruder film would be powerful evidence that the Zapruder film was a genuine original; contrarywise, any mis-match might be probabtive, even definitive, on the issue of whether the film in evidence was not taken by the Zapruder camera.

Neither David Marwell nor Jeremy Gunn wanted to do any such tests. Marwell looked with complete disdain at the notion that the Zapruder film might be a forgery. He said he had experience in college, either on the newspaper or in a photography club, with contact printing, and he just didn't see how the film could be inauthentic. He kept bringing up the small size of an 8 mm film, saying: "You'd need engraving tools." As Doug observed later, he simply failed to inform himself about optical editing technology.

Gunn was a different matter. When Marwell left the ARRB, and the problem was passed to Gunn, the problem was political. Gunn did not have good relations with the five Board members, who—Doug tells me—thought of him as a closet assassination buff (and he was, in some ways). The Board members were essentially conservative, and Gunn knew they would never approve doing a test in Dealy Plaza; that their fear would be a New York Times headine, "ARRB Suspects Zapruder Film Forgery".

Doug thought their fears were completely exaggerated. It was well within the rights of the ARRB to investigate the provenance of any assassination record, and "record" could be more important that the visual record of the Zapruder film?

When Marwell departed as Exec Director to take outside employment. Gunn became Exec Director as well as General Counsel. This was the autumn of 1997. One day, Doug locked horns with Gunn on this issue.

"I insisted on a film test in Zapruder's actual camera in Dealey Plaza on November 22 at 12:30 PM," recalls Doug. Gunn was cold, austere, distant, even hostile.

"What are your reasons for wanting to do this test?" he said.

"Film authenticity," replied Doug.

"And I said that the best way to test inauthenticity would be to see if the intersprocket sprocket image looked the same or not as the intersprocket image on the film at the Archives. That's exactly what I said.

"He then completely astounded me by saying 'Can you give me a reason to conduct this test that has nothing to do with authenticitiy?'"

"I was floored by his question," recalls Doug, "And I said, I literally exploded: 'I can't believe you're asking me that question. That's ridiculous. The only reason to do this testis authenticity.' Gunn said : "Let's call Rollie and put it to a vote."

And so, right on the spot, he called Rollie Zavada: How did he feel about conducting such a test—using Abe's camera, upon the white pedestal, on November 22, at 12:30 PM?

"I've already shot test film in Zapruder type cameras," replied Rollie, "and the only thing that Doug is proposing that's any different is to do it on November 22, at 12:30 P.M.

Then Rollie delivered the coup de grace: "I see no reason to do this test with Abe's original camera; it would be good enough to use any camera of the same make and model."

"And at that point, I knew I'd lost," recalls Doug. "I was devastated. Really, I was."

Gunn immediately. proposed a compromise.

"We've got Tom Samoluk going to Dallas on other business around November 22 [1997]. Can you send us a Zapruder type camera filled with film, and we'll conduct the test that Doug wants, which is to shoot it on 11/22 at 12:30 PM?"

"And Rollie said, 'Sure, I'll do that.'

"They thought they were doing a good thing," says Doug. "I was extremely disappointed, because: (1) A film pro wouldn't be conducting the test; (2) it wouldn't be Abe's camera."

Doug says that he knew that if Zapruder's actual camera wasn't used, then whatever anomalies were discovered would be attributed to a camera-to-camera variation.

"Those were all the things running through my mind, so I was very disappointed," recalls Doug. But it wasn't over—yet.

The ARRB Completes Its Work

In Chicago, the Zapruder family was completing their work on reassembling the film as a motion picture film, for public release, both on VHS and DVD, which occurred in the fall of 1998.

In September 1998, the ARRB was to go out of business. That meant there would be no ARRB after 9/30. No ifs ands or buts: the report had to be in. And Rollie Zavada was hard at work completing that report. He too had photographed selected frames from the original Z film original on a light box at the Archives. These test frames would appear in his report as Figures 4-1 and 4-2, the first time Z frames had been published, in color, that went out to the sprocket hole area.

In Washington, Doug was doing a myriad of things connected with the closing of shop. On September 30, the ARRB ceased to exist. There was a "sunset" news conference. Then it was over. The Archives now had some 4 million pages; and one of them would be the Zavada report.

In short, another piece of the disguise falls away, and it becomes clearer than ever that the body was altered, with the Zapruder film having been altered (among other reasons) to corroborate the false version of the wounds. In this way, film alteration and body alteration are integrally linked, historically. Both are part of the same disguise. Moreover, even if, because of film editing, we can't determine the truth about the details of the shooting—at least not yet—we can now begin to understand the political significance of what is being hidden, by determining the nature of the disguise employed to hide that truth.

• Mrs. Zapruder told me in November 1971 that Abe "gave them the film," clearly implying he had parted with the original, and at an early hour. Local newspaper stories state that Abe Zapruder was closeted with "government agents" into the evening. Years later, Life representative Stolley said he couldn't find Zapruder at home until midnight Friday, and that when he expressed his interest in viewing it as soon as possible, Zapruder begged off. He was tired, he had been driving around all night, he said; and would prefer seeing Stolley in the morning. Zapruder's business partner Erwin Swartz said he took two film cans to the Dallas Naval Air Station on Friday night. All this raises the question of whether Zapruder possessed the original on Friday night.

In January, 1967, Life "explained" the splice, claiming a technician had an "oops" moment, and dropped the film. But Life never provided the name of the technician, and in nearly four decades since Dallas, no technician from Life has ever appeared to verify any of these assertions. Moreover, this January 1967 explanation failed to mention the existence of another splice, just as obvious, that existed in the unpublished portion of the film (around frame 155). This second splice was discovered in early 1969. Life never mentioned this second splice, nor did Josiah Thompson, who contracted to work with Life in 1966, and who made extensive use of these materials.

• The two areas of splicing in the original should not be considered indicative of the way the film was edited and altered (see next section for those details). The kind of editing being discussed would not have been done mechanically, and in 8mm format. Almost certainly it was done optically (in 16 or 35 mm format), utilizing an optical printer. In short, the "editing" being considered here did not involve pasting 8mm film pieces together; but was, rather, "optical editing" done in 16 or 35 mm format and on an optical printer.

As a practical matter, the Zapruder film could only have been altered optically, i.e., through the use of an Oxberry (or Acme) optical printer, the standard tool of the special effects profession. An optical printer re-photographs the original film, one frame at a time (but chugs along at full camera speed), and the result—if no editing is done—is a rather rapidly created duplicate. In connection with making that dupe, various alterations can be made. A film can be re-framed, to change the image size. Or sections can be omitted. Or frames can be periodically omitted (which would change velocity of the car, for example).

Finally, in a particular frame, additional imagery can be added (i.e. a "matte artist" can draw in, or "paint on" additional information). This art would be crucial to understanding any changes in the head wound imagery. In effect, the "matte artist" can "draw on" the picture that is already there, much as a child draws lines on a poster. These are all the standard techniques in the tool box of the special effects person, circa 1963. Films are not altered or edited that way today, when everything is done digitally. But that's how it was done then.

The Basic Problem

Although the Zapruder film—after processing—is an "8 mm film," that is not its configuration when inside the Zapruder camera. At that point, in its original format, it is a 16 mm film, with a "side A" and a "side B," akin to the red and black portions of an ordinary typewriter ribbon. One side is first exposed; then the film is "turned over" and the other side exposed. The result is processed as a 16 mm film, and then slit, after processing, with the two sides being pasted together—"end to end"—so that a 25 foot roll of this film produces a 50 foot film in 8 mm format. In order for the Z film to have been altered, it would be very useful if it remained unslit after being processed at Kodak in Dallas. I first discovered that the film was not slit—i.e., that it was unslit—when I saw records connected with the Thompson law suit in the early 1970s. Later, I learned from documents made that weekend, that Dallas Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels ordered that the film, after processing, not be slit; i.e., remain unslit.

…Once the Secret Service—or any top level officials of the U.S. Government became aware of what was on this film, and if a decision was made to alter the film (i.e., to create a "politically correct" version of the assassination, for whatever reason)—it was then necessary to obtain the camera original, do that just as soon as possible, and get it into the hands of a competent editor. That original—the unslit 16mm film, after processing by Kodak in Dallas (a film that contained, on "side B", the actual film record of what had happened)— had to be brought to someone with visual effects expertise. His job: to optically edit the event (per the instructions of some "producer"), and create a substitute (Kodachrome) original, i.e., a substitute 16 mm film with "side A" containing the family sequence, and "side B" containing the altered (i.e., edited) Zapruder film.

Is such "early access" possible? Apparently so—certainly as a possibility. The original records of the Kodak lab establish that although the Zapruder film went through as film number 0183, and that—after returning from Jamieson with three Kodachrome A duplicates (which went through the processor as 0185, 0186, and 0187)—there is a missing number in the sequence: 0184. That number isunaccounted for. That means something went through the processor the between the Zapruder original, and the three copies. The matter is not trivial because only four film cans—the genuine original, plus the three copies exposed at Jamieson (and then brought back to Kodak for processing)—are supposed to have existed. An additional copy raises the possibility of substitution—i.e., that early access was obtained to the original and a copy substituted, all this

occurring at a rather early hour.

Another matter. I have heard those unfamiliar with film processing wonder how it is that the film could be altered, since "there is more than one copy and the copies agree with the original." This is a weak argument. Only three copies were made—and two were in the custody of the Secret Service. So substitution in the case of those two would be easy. As to Zapruder's copy, that was given to Life along with the "original" when the initial sale was made on Saturday morning, November 23. Viewed more generally, it cannot be ruled out that, by early evening on Friday, Abe Zapruder knew he was dealing with the Government, immediately after his film had been processed at Kodak, and had been entreated to provide his film, being told it was needed for "national security." What his wife, Lillian, told me comports with that general theme. In 1971, she said: "My husband gave—gave them the film. He actually gave—he gave it to them." And: "They handled it beautifully. . .they acted like gentlemen about the whole matter."

This camera ought to be the centerpiece of a future criminal investigation, the purpose of which would be to establish, officially and once and for all: Can the film in evidence have been made by the camera in evidence? And if the answer is no, and that appears to be the case, based on the test films Zavada has exposed, a second question must be addressed: who made this film?

Hawkeyeworks—Revisited

After the final "politically correct" film had been created (i.e., probably in low contrast 35 mm format), the final step would have been to create an 8 mm copy of it. If done properly, i.e., to mimic Zapruder's actual camera original, that copy would have to be placed on "side B" of standard 16 mm Kodachrome "double perf" film, resulting in a Kodachrome needing to be processed.

Somewhere. And the problem would be where. Kodachrome is special. It was created (primarily) for the civilian home movie market, required special processing, and there were only some half dozen processing plants in the U.S. equipped to handle such film. Obviously, it could not be "processed" in Dallas (again), because the Z film had already been processed there. Imagine Mr. Chamberlain, the supervisor at the Kodak plant in Dallas, asked by the government to process a Kodachrome, and seeing the Zapruder film emerging from the processor. ("But we already processed this last Friday!" etc.) And yet some lab was needed. The Secret Service agent who identified himself as "Smith" and who brought the film to the NPIC color lab said he had just come from Rochester, where the film had been processed at Hawkeyeworks, the code name for a top secret facility in Rochester, New York, run by Kodak for the U.S. Government. Was there a Kodachrome processor there? McMahon's statement about what Smith told him doesn't prove the point—it could be considered hearsay—but the entire story is corrobated not by what McMahon heard, but what he did: McMahon held in his hands the actual film, he worked with it for hours, making some 28 color prints of specific frames, and told the ARRB it was a Kodachrome, with the assassination sequence on the second side. The fact that Homer McMann says it was on 16mm double perf stock, and that it was UNSLIT, and that he had to turn it "upside down" to view the image properly further attests that this was a genuine Kodachrome. Yet the original Kodachrome was at Life, having been purchased for $50,000. So the implication is that a Kodachrome at NPIC must have been a forgery.

At the very least, McMahon's account proves there was a second Kodachrome, by Saturday or Sunday night, and that fact alone indicates it must have been a forgery.

Moreover, it should be noted what happened when Doug Horne found out about this situation—and understood the implications of what the CIA's Homer McMahon was saying during his 1997 ARRB interview (i.e., that the Z film had been processed in Rochester, when Doug knew it had supposedly been processed in Dallas). Horne attempted to get his superiors at the ARRB to investigate further (requesting records for 1963, conducting interviews, etc.) His requests were flatly refused. So further inquiries were not made about this classified film facility. Then came another problem, concerning the name of the lab itself. When the CIA got wind of the fact that its former employee had used the name "Hawkeyeworks" in the taped interview with the ARRB, they went ballistic. The CIA liaison with the ARRB demanded that the reference to this code-named facility be removed. Consequently, Doug Horne was commanded to take the audio tape, duplicate it, and edit the duplicate to eliminate the spoken voice saying that word. Doug followed orders, writin a "memo for the record" of the deletion. (and the original, unaltered tape, is at the Archives, still sealed).

The Left Margin Problem and the Two Splices

Two phenomena are unique to the so-called original Zapruder film (i.e., the one that is today is in the National Archives): (1) The film contains two splices; (2) the left margin cannot be explained in terms of the optical system (i.e. the lens) on the Zapruder camera. The existence of two splices in the so-called "original" Zapruder film is evidence that, however and wherever the work was done, when the final 8 mm product was produced, it was done in three segments. Call them segment A, segment B and segment C. When the work was finished, two splices were required where created where A was pasted to B, and B to C. (In each case, frames were lost.) That those "missing frames" exist on the Secret Service copies implies the existence of "master" (i.e., a master progenitor) from which all these film items were made. But back to the splices: the existence of these splices were never mentioned by the FBI, and never came to the attention of the Warren Commission investigation.

As to the JFK research community, they learned about these splices not as a pair, but separately, and in events that were separated by roughly four years. An awareness of the first was developed in 1965 (as I have recounted above). In January, 1967, LIFE issued an explanation that a technician had broken the film by accident. Then, in 1969, when it was discovered that there was another splice—just as obvious (at frame Z-155)—Life said nothing. Not a blessed thing. And it has been that way ever since. The second splice has never been explained, and it is my belief that the proper way to view these splices is to view them as a pair.

I don't know whether the sign was hit that day, but I no longer believe that a bullet striking the sign has anything to do with the existence of the splice, the reason being that there is a second splice, at frame 155, and in connection with that splice, there seemed to be just two frames missing, and what could have happened in just two frames (about 1/10 of a second) that could be hidden? So I don't think these splices have anything to do with editing the content of the original Zapruder film; but rather must be viewed in another context: that they are somehow part of the process used to produce—for some reason in three segments—an 8 mm reduction print with material in the sprocket hole area.

Nobody has to be dug up at a cemetery. One insignificant frame of the film would be clipped off. Determining gthe truth is worth it. The Kodachrome in evidence is marked "Kodachrome II", i.e., the edgeprint of an oiutdoor film. If the spectro test establoishes it is indoor film (ie. Kodachrome II A), the deception is proved, and the ballgame is over.

Moreoverer, if the film fails the test, two things would be established: (a) that the film was exposed in a laboratory setting or that of an editing facility; and someone went to the trouble of affixing a false manufacturing edgeprint (or cutting out the "A" in Kodachrome II-A) to create a film stock that would be used on an Optical printer, but disguise it so that it appeared to be outdoor film. The intent of affixing the false logo would be to deceive history. This test would end that deception, once and for all.

7. Moreover, in the midst of this hub bub and with millions of dollars changing hands, the ARRB—read, GeneralCounsel Jeremy Gunn—proceeded in a rather careless and high-handed fashion and failed to "take" the copyright along with the film for the American people. So, contrary to all promises made to the public about securing the copyright, the public still has to pay!

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...