Harry and the zfilm

[Robin Unger]

Zavada Report.

From the Marsh Website.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/zat-1.htm

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/Zavada_Report.html

Edited May 26, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Edited May 26, 2006 by Robin Unger

[John Dolva]

Zavada Report.

From the Marsh Website.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/zat-1.htm

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/Zavada_Report.html

Robin, those links and attachments seem to clear up some things, and raise other questions. Trying to unravel the first few hours seems to be a bit like keeping your eye on the ball.

Zavada doesn't seem to have known of the Harry viewing

Reminds me of that three card shuffle, follow the ace. Can't quite figure out Sorrels pass the parcel and Zavada not studying the original at the same time as the 2 secret service copies* and where did these two copies go?

*one of which was of different density ?? throughout uniformely so, or in parts? is this the copy that Harry thumbed (around midnight 22nd?)? Is this the copy that Zavada writes "On the following day (this would bethe morning 23 viewing?), Mr Chamberlain recalls viewing one of the prints with a Secret Service Agent (Sorrels?). Dick Blair recalls a comment, possibly from Pat Pattist, that someone noticed some unsteadiness at every-other 8mm frame (every-other? now and then?) (bla bal bla)"

Makes me wonder whether Harry and Sorrels cleaned their hands before handling the film? Are there fluids on the skin that can momentarily partially dissolve the coating and then it dries (sets?) again? Though I suppose that would leave a fingerprint?

repeat from earlier post::

................................................................................

.......................................................

c/o'Sixth floor museum site:

6:00pm

Zapruder and Schwartz returned to Kodak to have the prints prepared for projection.

10:00pm

Schwartz and Zapruder took two prints to Forrest Sorrels, head of the Dallas Secret Service office, who immediately dispatched one to Secret Service investigators in Washington, D.C.

11:00pm

LIFE magazine Pacific Bureau editor Richard Stolley, who immediately flew from Los Angeles to Dallas after hearing of the assassination, reached Zapruder at his home by phone and arranged to meet in his office at 9:00 the next morning.

====================== November 23, 1963======================

8:00am

Stolley arrived at Zapruder’s office an hour early and waited.

9:00am

Zapruder screened the film again for Secret Service agents, then met with Stolley and agreed to sell only the print rights to LIFE. He expressed concern that the film not be exploited. Stolley left with the original film and one print. The original went to LIFE’s printing center in Chicago and the print went to its corporate office in New York. LIFE personnel examined the film to decide which frames to publish. At some point, they accidentally damaged the original in two places and six frames were removed, leaving visible splice marks.(The original film is the artifact purchased by the US Government in 1999; the duplicate print is now in the Zapruder Collection at The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.)

................................................................................

.......................................................

After selling the original and one copy to LIFE, Zapruder seems to have retained an unexplained* 4th copy, which Sorrels brought people over to view, being without his copies Nov. 23-26.(Trask)

Where is te copy Sorrels (Schwartz and Zapruder took two prints to Forrest Sorrels, head of the Dallas Secret Service office, who immediately dispatched one to Secret Service investigators in Washington, D.C" sent to Washington.

Presumably if I understand correctly (please correct me) then by midnight the 22'nd, Zapruder has a whole original and one (two?) (whole) copy (/ies). Sorrels is 'thumbing' one (whole) copy with Harry, and one wnole copy is in the bag to Washington

"Also on Friday evening, November 22nd, [Forrest]

Sorrels did a frame-by-frame study of the Zapruder film

in his Dallas office. According to Dallas Postal

Inspector Harry D. Holmes who was present, "...we

thumbed (through) that thing for an hour or more...push (ing)

it up one frame at a time"

The commission then choose the damaged original to view. Who has seen the copy sent to Washington?

__________________

*could this fourth copy be the copy that Sorrels had studied with Harry(copy 3) some hours earlier?

__________________

??????????????

edit:: I'm probably missing a part in the puzzle but it almost looks as if Sorrels fed copy 3 back into the loop through Zapruder. Did Zapruder pass a copy on to a secret service other than Sorrels?

Edited May 26, 2006 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

'Robin Unger' provided document Abe Zapruder signed....

I (Zapruder) was present... and did not at any time notice or see any circumstance that would indicate that additional copies or prints of such film were or could have been made.

And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so.

[Bill Miller]

And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so.

IMO ... No one cay answer that anymore than they can assume that he didn't know the difference.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so.

IMO ... No one cay answer that anymore than they can assume that he didn't know the difference.

Bill Miller

which renders Abe's declaration....what? Pure window dressing...

[John Dolva]

David, you are quite correct, as is Bill. Important points duly noted.

For a partly speculative investigation that hopes to map the trail particularly in the first few hours, it's an important document nevertheless. Ultimate conclusions, if such is possible, will need to consider these things.

Do either of you 'know' what happened to Sorrels second copy? At the moment it looks to me like a classic laundering operation, if so, to what purpose?

___________________________

Also I'm still not clear on the structure of the splice constructed by life. Six frames missing? Does this mean the portions, possibly three, plus the 6 or six full frames missing? In other words the portions of frames seen are part of the six misssing? Because the prtions together could concievably be regarded as at l;east one frame. So one damaged and six missing,... or what?

[Jack White]

The six missing frames at the Stemmons spice.

What about the earlier splice?

Jack

[Bill Miller]

And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so.

IMO ... No one cay answer that anymore than they can assume that he didn't know the difference.

Bill Miller

which renders Abe's declaration....what? Pure window dressing...

David, Zapruder had shot home movies and projected them on his projector for years, so what are you implying here ... that Zapruder somehow couldn't visually tell the difference between a projector and a printer because in your view they look identical somehow?

Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

Thank you for that Jack. Which copy did those frames come from? Do you know the history or a detailed source of the history/mechanics of the splice itself

I haven't spotted the earlier splice yet.

[David G. Healy]

And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so.

IMO ... No one cay answer that anymore than they can assume that he didn't know the difference.

Bill Miller

which renders Abe's declaration....what? Pure window dressing...

David, Zapruder had shot home movies and projected them on his projector for years, so what are you implying here ... that Zapruder somehow couldn't visually tell the difference between a projector and a printer because in your view they look identical somehow?

Bill Miller

He did? Any other films shot with the B&H414? How long did he have the B&H414 again? Maybe someone should tell Rollie about this, dont ya think? Any confirming documents regarding the same?

Implying? Read my words... research Watson, simple research -- ... Maybe Gary can tell us how many labs Abe Zapruder was in during his film career, and tell us if he, A. Zapruder knew the difference between a film projector and a film printer?

[Jack White]

Thank you for that Jack. Which copy did those frames come from? Do you know the history or a detailed source of the history/mechanics of the splice itself

I haven't spotted the earlier splice yet.

John...it is 157.

Jack

PS: Robert Groden copied the missing frames from the Secret Service copy.

The frames are missing only on the LIFE original.

Here is the Stemmons 212 missing frames splice, which in my unexpert opinion

is impossible...since the ends of the film are butted together, not overlapped.

But what do I know?

Jack

Edited May 27, 2006 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

David, Zapruder had shot home movies and projected them on his projector for years, so what are you implying here ... that Zapruder somehow couldn't visually tell the difference between a projector and a printer because in your view they look identical somehow?

Bill Miller

He did? Any other films shot with the B&H414? How long did he have the B&H414 again? Maybe someone should tell Rollie about this, dont ya think? Any confirming documents regarding the same?

Implying? Read my words... research Watson, simple research -- ... Maybe Gary can tell us how many labs Abe Zapruder was in during his film career, and tell us if he, A. Zapruder knew the difference between a film projector and a film printer?

David, what gets you into trouble is that you are one of these guys who reads the headings and never the text so to really know what you are talking about. Then when you are called on it ... you quickly dance away in another direction.

Case and point: You started out saying, "And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so." By first just asking someone who has had contact with the members of the Zapruder family over the years ... you would know that Zapruder had shot home movies for years prior to the assassination, but rather than you actually seeking information beforehand, you do what you always do and that is to just plant suspicion unnecessarily. So without addressing the errered assumption you had implied, you then switched gears and referenced specifically a B&H414. So I will now ask the following question in light of your maneuvering ... Are you suggesting that Zapruder's specific camera and/or projector looked so much like a printer that he would not be able to visually tell the difference?

And in the future you should cite those sources that you're talking about because as we learned with the Costella web page that you promoted so often ... you didn't know he had 'screwed your pooch' by saying the alterations had already been done before Life Magazine ran the Zapruder film stills shortly after the assassination. In other words you are known to incorrectly promote things based on not actually knowing all the facts.

Bill Miller

PS: Robert Groden copied the missing frames from the Secret Service copy.

The frames are missing only on the LIFE original.

Jack, I think you meant the 'Zapruder original' that was in Life's possession at the time the damaged occurred.

Here is the Stemmons 212 missing frames splice, which in my unexpert opinion

is impossible...since the ends of the film are butted together, not overlapped.

But what do I know?

Jack

Seeing how you have had many years to do so ... you surely addressed your 'unexpert opinion' with the experts - right? If so, what did they tell you their expert opinion was concerning what you thought would be impossible?

Bill Miller

Edited May 27, 2006 by Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

Jack, at this point sans other info, it looks to me like maybe the film was spliced twice at the 207 splice.

First a feathered splice of the entire film causing a missing one half frame feathered and spliced on to the preceding frame thus obscuring part of one frame. Then a second tear that is repaired by discarding furred sprocket holes, and spliced next to the previous splice with some thin overlapping filament on the back, giving the 'butt'. This then becomes the misssing 6 frames, which I'm at this point not convinced is just 6,some measurtements indicate 6 some 7. A detailed description by the person who made the splice could (unless he/she is ashamed) be useful.

Does my assumptions re splicing make sense? Is that how it is done?

__________

Also is the secret service copy that is the source for those frames (6) the one that was sent to Washington by Sorrels on 22'nd (by internal bag or through the postal system?) or the one retained by him and thumbed by him and Harry?

Edited May 27, 2006 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

BMiller wrote endlessly...

David, what gets you into trouble is that you are one of these guys who reads the headings and never the text so to really know what you are talking about.

dgh01: of course I don't know what I'm talking about, Gary Mack told you so, right ? Did Gary tell you AZapruder lied about what he was paid for the Zapruder film? ....maybe Gary will show up here and tell us himself -- there are those that want answers, I suspect RZavada could use a few answers about a certain septum problem. If you can stop your huffin and a puffin long enough to make use of your unending spare time, maybe, just MAYBE your worth more than your displayed dead weight around here.... like show us a film shot through Zapruder's B&H414...?

Then when you are called on it ... you quickly dance away in another direction.

dgh01: no dancing champ, just reach back and find a question that merits me answering it, but first of course your gonna have to provide me and all the lurkers out here your bonfides for even participating in trhese discussions, eh?

Case and point: You started out saying, "And how would he know? Is ANYONE sure Abraham Zapruder knew the difference between a projector and a film printer? I don't think so." By first just asking someone who has had contact with the members of the Zapruder family over the years ... you would know that Zapruder had shot home movies for years prior to the assassination, but rather than you actually seeking information beforehand, you do what you always do and that is to just plant suspicion unnecessarily.

dgh01: plant suspicion? LMAO! Got plenty of suspicious questions, that apparently have no clear answers, that's why their questions.

So without addressing the errered assumption you had implied, you then switched gears and referenced specifically a B&H414.

dgh01: duh.... that is the camera AZapruder said he used. Is there **other** film Abe Zapruder ran through the B&H414 during the year he alledgedy owned it, if so, I'll certainly consider it.... But you know, hiding and changing the subject from emulsion and grain structure of the Z-film to this nonsense has not gone unnoticed....

So I will now ask the following question in light of your maneuvering ... Are you suggesting that Zapruder's specific camera and/or projector looked so much like a printer that he would not be able to visually tell the difference?

dgh01: somebody, please, buy this guy a drink -- listen up Willy, did Zapruder run more film through his B&H414 camera before or AFTER the assassination sequence? If so, has Roland Zavada seen same? This isn't rocket science, Gary's right there, ask him?

And in the future you should cite those sources that you're talking about because as we learned with the Costella web page that you promoted so often ... you didn't know he had 'screwed your pooch' by saying the alterations had already been done before Life Magazine ran the Zapruder film stills shortly after the assassination. In other words you are known to incorrectly promote things based on not actually knowing all the facts.

dgh01: you ever find a Physicists to back your nonesense? Yeah, that's what i thought, just more conjecture from your side, wishful hoping -- but I understand -- Back to LIFE: those Novemer issue b&w images? LOL -- the ones that look like they were drawn with a crayon? The unnumbered ones, those the ones your talking about? -- Yeah, I've seen 'em, got all the Life Magazines here, what do you need to know about 'em? Got the 'STOP the PRESSES' version too...

Say, your so knowledgable maybe you can tell us WHO numbered and WHEN the Zapruder frames were numbered? Huh Sherlock?

I think you need a refresher course in the .john mcadams school of disinformation, your becoming an embarassment to the Lone Neuter cause --

Edited May 27, 2006 by David G. Healy