Fielding-Zavada (attn: John Simkin)

[William Kelly]

Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? .

Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said “To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!“. When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people.

Dave - Lying doesn’t become you nor the forum!!!!

3.5 years ago and this is still heating up.... the trolls have dropped the ball, again. So where is Gary M's latest dance concerning Doug Horne's take on Z-film alteration? Rumor has it he (Gary) has broken his silence...

I can explain the latest alteration theory du jour. In fact, anyone familiar with the physics of photography should know the answer.The claim is that Zapruder frames 214, 218, 220, 224 and 229 show problems with the edge of the Stemmons sign. In 214, instead of showing a sharply-defined curved line, the upper rounded corner seems to disappear. In the other frames, the objects beyond the sign seem to show through the straight edge of the sign and sort of blend in with it.

The explanation is very simple. There are actually five variables at work in every frame: a moving camera, a moving car, moving objects, a stationary sign, and a relatively slow camera shutter speed. All the moving objects travel in the same direction left to right.

The shutter speed of Zapruder’s camera was 1/40^th of a second (http://www.jfk-info.com/durn1.htm) and the film passed through the camera at an average rate of 18.3 frames per second. During the time each frame was exposed, 1/40^th of a second, all the objects except the sign moved a short distance laterally. Beginner physics say the stationary sign, therefore, must appear more blurred than the moving objects….and it does.

The objects (limo sun visors, Jackie and others), appear through the blur because they move with the camera while the shutter was open. Zapruder’s camera shutter speed wasn’t user-adjustable, but if it were, faster and faster speeds would show decreasing blur of the sign, and all sign corners and edges would appear normal.

So what are we actually seeing in each frame? Exactly what one should see. Bright objects in the car show through the blurred corner and side of the sign, distorting the image and obscuring the edges. Nothing more.

If anything, the anomalies support the film’s authenticity, which is something I’ve been saying since 1998, long before The Sixth Floor Museum received the film’s copyright (http://www.assassinationscience.com/mack.html). And if you wonder if my continuing defense of the film has something to do with my employment at the Museum, think again. Absolute proof of conspiracy would dramatically boost interest in the assassination and attendance at the Museum. That would be wonderful, but conspiracy needs to be proven first.

Gary Mack

[Craig Lamson]

Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? .

Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said “To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!“. When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people.

Dave - Lying doesn’t become you nor the forum!!!!

3.5 years ago and this is still heating up.... the trolls have dropped the ball, again. So where is Gary M's latest dance concerning Doug Horne's take on Z-film alteration? Rumor has it he (Gary) has broken his silence...

Who has dropped the ball? UH, that would be the twinks who believe in the fairytale of zfilm alteration.... that would incude you davie.

[Dean Hagerman]

Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? .

Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said “To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!“. When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people.

Dave - Lying doesn’t become you nor the forum!!!!

3.5 years ago and this is still heating up.... the trolls have dropped the ball, again. So where is Gary M's latest dance concerning Doug Horne's take on Z-film alteration? Rumor has it he (Gary) has broken his silence...

Who has dropped the ball? UH, that would be the twinks who believe in the fairytale of zfilm alteration.... that would incude you davie.

Denial

You know that we are about to be vidicated

What are going to do when that happens? Crawl into a corn field and ask Shoeless Joe Jackson why?

[Craig Lamson]

Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? .

Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said “To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!“. When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people.

Dave - Lying doesn’t become you nor the forum!!!!

3.5 years ago and this is still heating up.... the trolls have dropped the ball, again. So where is Gary M's latest dance concerning Doug Horne's take on Z-film alteration? Rumor has it he (Gary) has broken his silence...

Who has dropped the ball? UH, that would be the twinks who believe in the fairytale of zfilm alteration.... that would incude you davie.

Denial

You know that we are about to be vidicated

What are going to do when that happens? Crawl into a corn field and ask Shoeless Joe Jackson why?

Vindicated? Surely you jest. But then deano can't help himself. He is just a sheep who lets others do his thinking.

Keep believing in your fairytale. Lordy Lordy...deano BELIEVES!

Denial...yep thats deano to be sure.

[David G. Healy]

Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? .

Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said “To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!“. When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people.

Dave - Lying doesn’t become you nor the forum!!!!

3.5 years ago and this is still heating up.... the trolls have dropped the ball, again. So where is Gary M's latest dance concerning Doug Horne's take on Z-film alteration? Rumor has it he (Gary) has broken his silence...

Who has dropped the ball? UH, that would be the twinks who believe in the fairytale of zfilm alteration.... that would incude you davie.

Denial

You know that we are about to be vidicated

What are going to do when that happens? Crawl into a corn field and ask Shoeless Joe Jackson why?

Vindicated? Surely you jest. But then deano can't help himself. He is just a sheep who lets others do his thinking.

Keep believing in your fairytale. Lordy Lordy...deano BELIEVES!

Denial...yep thats deano to be sure.

Ahh, yes -- Dancing with the Stars, the Len and Craig ROAD SHOW. Then we have who Gary brings up the "physics of film" and the road show here goes to work..... nice try but no CEEEE-GAR. ROTFLMFAO! PR, it's all about PR!

May the trolls and all all other forum members (and lurkers) have a safe and sane Christmas, travel well friends!

David Healy

[William Kelly]

Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? .

Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said "To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!". When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people.

Dave - Lying doesn't become you nor the forum!!!!

3.5 years ago and this is still heating up.... the trolls have dropped the ball, again. So where is Gary M's latest dance concerning Doug Horne's take on Z-film alteration? Rumor has it he (Gary) has broken his silence...

Doesn't anyone want to discuss what Gary has to day?

I can explain the latest alteration theory du jour. In fact, anyone familiar with the physics of photography should know the answer.The claim is that Zapruder frames 214, 218, 220, 224 and 229 show problems with the edge of the Stemmons sign. In 214, instead of showing a sharply-defined curved line, the upper rounded corner seems to disappear. In the other frames, the objects beyond the sign seem to show through the straight edge of the sign and sort of blend in with it.

The explanation is very simple. There are actually five variables at work in every frame: a moving camera, a moving car, moving objects, a stationary sign, and a relatively slow camera shutter speed. All the moving objects travel in the same direction left to right.

The shutter speed of Zapruder's camera was 1/40^th of a second (http://www.jfk-info.com/durn1.htm) and the film passed through the camera at an average rate of 18.3 frames per second. During the time each frame was exposed, 1/40^th of a second, all the objects except the sign moved a short distance laterally. Beginner physics say the stationary sign, therefore, must appear more blurred than the moving objects….and it does.

The objects (limo sun visors, Jackie and others), appear through the blur because they move with the camera while the shutter was open. Zapruder's camera shutter speed wasn't user-adjustable, but if it were, faster and faster speeds would show decreasing blur of the sign, and all sign corners and edges would appear normal.

So what are we actually seeing in each frame? Exactly what one should see. Bright objects in the car show through the blurred corner and side of the sign, distorting the image and obscuring the edges. Nothing more.

If anything, the anomalies support the film's authenticity, which is something I've been saying since 1998, long before The Sixth Floor Museum received the film's copyright (http://www.assassinationscience.com/mack.html). And if you wonder if my continuing defense of the film has something to do with my employment at the Museum, think again. Absolute proof of conspiracy would dramatically boost interest in the assassination and attendance at the Museum. That would be wonderful, but conspiracy needs to be proven first.

Gary Mack

[Craig Lamson]

Doesn't anyone want to discuss what Gary has to day?

Why do't you start Kelly, after all you are the one with the magical conversion.

[David G. Healy]

Doesn't anyone want to discuss what Gary has to day?

Why do't you start Kelly, after all you are the one with the magical conversion.

light weight nutter-trolls to the rear, Craigster -- ya need a physicist till then you're dancin' chum!....

[William Kelly]

Doesn't anyone want to discuss what Gary has to day?

Why do't you start Kelly, after all you are the one with the magical conversion.

light weight nutter-trolls to the rear, Craigster -- ya need a physicist till then you're dancin' chum!....

Okay, I'll accept that challenge.

Thanks for being so civil.

But I don't know what a magical coversion is, and don't recognize it even though you say I got one.

First off, Gary has apparently agreed to discuss how the content of the film could exhibit such anomalies as Mooreman in the Street, the Malcolm Summers contortions, and the Stemmons Freeway sign corner cut-off, and I agree. From the reality of what happens to the image projected on a screen or on a piece of celluloid, anything can happen, including chemical mixes and smudges in the darkroom, and everything in between.

What I am interested in is the film itself - the original Z-film, and what became of it.

Did it make an appearance at the NPIC twice within days to do the same thing with two different teams of techs?

Did it come from a super-secret Kodak lab at their HQ at Rochester, NY where it was "processed," or was that just a mistake on the part of the messenger, who has yet to be identified, but can be and should be.

As David so clearly shows in his basic 101 course on 8mm film, they either had an original film or they had a copy, and as TT says, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know if there was images within the sockets that was on the original but not on the three copies made, and no technician worth his salt would not know that.

In addition, I am interested not only in the chain of custody of the original Z-film, but also what happened to the briefing boards that were made at two different sessions at NPIC? As far as I know only one survives, and the former head of the NPIC Dino Brugioni, who supervised one of the sessions, was chastized by his boss for keeping it.

The only reason I can think of for committing the crimes of tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice in destroying evidence in homicide, especailly certifialbly historic records, is to hide a more serious crime.

Rather than follow Prof. Fetzer's instructions and declair a set of facts and a conclusion that we can argue over forever, I would rather put it in the form of a question that we can discuss and possibly even answer.

They saved the briefing boards for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but thought they destroyed both sets of briefing boards of the Z-film? Why?

[Craig Lamson]

Doesn't anyone want to discuss what Gary has to day?

Why do't you start Kelly, after all you are the one with the magical conversion.

light weight nutter-trolls to the rear, Craigster -- ya need a physicist till then you're dancin' chum!....

LOL! Your a funny guy davie. You got a 'physicist" who can't figure out BASIC photographic parallax anf you are yapping about lightweights! You need a new line, this one is broken beyond repair.

[William Kelly]

Doesn't anyone want to discuss what Gary has to day?

Why do't you start Kelly, after all you are the one with the magical conversion.

light weight nutter-trolls to the rear, Craigster -- ya need a physicist till then you're dancin' chum!....

Okay, I'll accept that challenge.

Thanks for being so civil.

But I don't know what a magical coversion is, and don't recognize it even though you say I got one.

First off, Gary has apparently agreed to discuss how the content of the film could exhibit such anomalies as Mooreman in the Street, the Malcolm Summers contortions, and the Stemmons Freeway sign corner cut-off, and I agree. From the reality of what happens to the image projected on a screen or on a piece of celluloid, anything can happen, including chemical mixes and smudges in the darkroom, and everything in between.

What I am interested in is the film itself - the original Z-film, and what became of it.

Did it make an appearance at the NPIC twice within days to do the same thing with two different teams of techs?

Did it come from a super-secret Kodak lab at their HQ at Rochester, NY where it was "processed," or was that just a mistake on the part of the messenger, who has yet to be identified, but can be and should be.

As David so clearly shows in his basic 101 course on 8mm film, they either had an original film or they had a copy, and as TT says, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know if there was images within the sockets that was on the original but not on the three copies made, and no technician worth his salt would not know that.

In addition, I am interested not only in the chain of custody of the original Z-film, but also what happened to the briefing boards that were made at two different sessions at NPIC? As far as I know only one survives, and the former head of the NPIC Dino Brugioni, who supervised one of the sessions, was chastized by his boss for keeping it.

The only reason I can think of for committing the crimes of tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice in destroying evidence in homicide, especailly certifialbly historic records, is to hide a more serious crime.

Rather than follow Prof. Fetzer's instructions and declair a set of facts and a conclusion that we can argue over forever, I would rather put it in the form of a question that we can discuss and possibly even answer.

They saved the briefing boards for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but they destroyed both sets of briefing boards of the Z-film? Why?

Edited December 25, 2009 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

Doesn't anyone want to discuss what Gary has to day?

Why do't you start Kelly, after all you are the one with the magical conversion.

light weight nutter-trolls to the rear, Craigster -- ya need a physicist till then you're dancin' chum!....

Okay, I'll accept that challenge.

Thanks for being so civil.

But I don't know what a magical coversion is, and don't recognize it even though you say I got one.

First off, Gary has apparently agreed to discuss how the content of the film could exhibit such anomalies as Mooreman in the Street, the Malcolm Summers contortions, and the Stemmons Freeway sign corner cut-off, and I agree. From the reality of what happens to the image projected on a screen or on a piece of celluloid, anything can happen, including chemical mixes and smudges in the darkroom, and everything in between.

What I am interested in is the film itself - the original Z-film, and what became of it.

Did it make an appearance at the NPIC twice within days to do the same thing with two different teams of techs?

Did it come from a super-secret Kodak lab at their HQ at Rochester, NY where it was "processed," or was that just a mistake on the part of the messenger, who has yet to be identified, but can be and should be.

As David so clearly shows in his basic 101 course on 8mm film, they either had an original film or they had a copy, and as TT says, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know if there was images within the sockets that was on the original but not on the three copies made, and no technician worth his salt would not know that.

In addition, I am interested not only in the chain of custody of the original Z-film, but also what happened to the briefing boards that were made at two different sessions at NPIC? As far as I know only one survives, and the former head of the NPIC Dino Brugioni, who supervised one of the sessions, was chastized by his boss for keeping it.

The only reason I can think of for committing the crimes of tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice in destroying evidence in homicide, especailly certifialbly historic records, is to hide a more serious crime.

Rather than follow Prof. Fetzer's instructions and declair a set of facts and a conclusion that we can argue over forever, I would rather put it in the form of a question that we can discuss and possibly even answer.

They saved the briefing boards for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but thought they destroyed both sets of briefing boards of the Z-film? Why?

David Lifton from Pig on a Leash:

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 black 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....

..... 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 a “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!