+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely (/thread-11235.html)
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Josephs - 28-08-2013
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Tracy, Magda and Jan- post 59. Thank you. Says it all.
Sadly it went right by the fistfighters who posted next.
The two Davids, in color.
I cannot even read this stuff.
Please re-read post 59, twice.
Losing one great voice was more than enough for me.
DPF is not a place to see who can yell the loudest.
And it's not just you two, but that's another story...
I am sad to see what is happening here.
Dawn
You're right Dawn...
No one here should be expected to present anything to support what they post - however inaccurate it may be.
We should all just nod and proclaim, "well done!" ??
I'd ask that you re-read this - https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11259-Are-there-statements-from-Kodak-employees-who-saw-the-Zfilm-friday&p=75151#post75151 post #9
it ends with:
Jeff I greatly appreciate your involvement in the conversation yet I sincerely suggest you dig around a little and get some of the facts straight before making such definitive statements. I've been at this for two decades, have a photographic memory and gigs and gigs of reference material on flash drives at my ready.
I thoroughly enjoy any and all respectful discussion and am willing to consider most any theory offered with some level of authenticated support…
Cheers
DJ
the response was to reiterate his beliefs about the film speed - again without reason... and offers:
Quote:Might the CIA's reluctance to admit interest in the Z-film have anything to do with the report the NPIC presented on Nov 25 which stated there were at least two shooters?
If you are aware of this two-shooter conclusion from the NPIC on the 25, care to share it with us? This is purely irresponsible... the man goes on for a page more or two, explaining how the camera could not switch from slow to normal, and how the spring mechanism accounts for the Greer Head movement among other anomalies....
Quote: Fair enough Jeff and thank you for your answer...
(snip)
Your experience and knowledge would be helpful if you would simply bring something concrete.
I've gone back and read thru my conversation with Jeff... and in each case it was respectful and questioning.... to PLEASE support the words with something tangible, as a film expert...
yet as you read thru the rest of the thread and then after I finally asked that he start a thread elsewhere as we were not getting anywhere... he would not offer anything.
A few posts back I finally addressed the first of the NEW thread's, this thread's posts.
I've used color, bold & italics to differentiate between "speakers" for many years... I am sorry it is hard for some to follow. the Quote on and off process may be better so I will try not to confuse the issue with color... from a certainPOV I guess it could appear like "raising one's voice" yet I always thought CAPS were for that...
The subject hits close to home... I've learned a great deal here about the Zfilm and have continued discussions that have led me to this point in my education.
Jeff - it appeared to me very early - did not want to have a discussion but wanted to disrupt the discussion we were having with ideas and concepts that had nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Contrary theories that COULD have explained some of the anomolies - if they were developed, presented and discussed... even the most cursory examination of them revealed how flawed they are...
I dont claim the 48fps theory is correct - it's a theory. The SPRING causing what we see on the film was offered as an unwavering conclusion... no other possibilities - and when addressed we were not given a single reason to trust in either the theory or the man presenting it.
I'm with Charles, and David on this one... people shouldn't expect to come onto this forum and be able to SAY ANYTHING and not expect discussion and questioning of thought process, motives, qualifications or whatever a member might be interested in knowing to help construct and defend the idea presented...
We gave this person plenty of time and respect... what we got were cointelpro techniques for disrupting a forum...
and surprise, surprise - they worked.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logicalargument is offered,
avoid discussing issues except with denials they have anycredibility,
make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, havelogic,
or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Healy - 28-08-2013
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Tracy, Magda and Jan- post 59. Thank you. Says it all.
Sadly it went right by the fistfighters who posted next.
The two Davids, in color.
I cannot even read this stuff.
Please re-read post 59, twice.
Losing one great voice was more than enough for me.
DPF is not a place to see who can yell the loudest.
And it's not just you two, but that's another story...
I am sad to see what is happening here.
Dawn
this is one topic (area of study) within a forum covering many deep-politic topics. So why all the wringing of hands all of a sudden? I spent 40+ years in film-video production, when it comes to film-video, Jan I suspect has spent a few years also, this is no big deal--at least for me.
This is a WCR, Z-film supporting, lone nut canard... the WCR and it's LHO did it all by his lonesome is in death throes, and the nutters know it.
What's sad is 2 months ago I was informed to expect a Z-film alteration assault before summers end <sigh>... Lest I remind long term posters (here and elsewhere), some alleged long-term conspiracy concluding researchers over the past ten years have been taken to task concerning their conclusions whom evidently needed their work and conclusions supported by none other than, the currently housed in NARA WCR un-altered, alleged Zaprduer film, as is...
How much *deep politics* do you need? If Jeffrey has the wherewithall, then prove it, let's see it, otherwise: it's opinion. btw, who is yelling?
--David
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Jim Hackett II - 28-08-2013
The one with the complicit treason of the Praetorian Guard.....leaving no doubt as to who done what to whom.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Jeff Carter - 29-08-2013
I feel I have to clear up a few misrepresentations.
In an earlier post on another thread I offered that I have operated an Oxberry aerial optical printer and more than once. I would not describe myself as an expert, but I knew people who were and had opportunities to watch them at work. By simply threading the projector and loading the camera for the first time in the printer room, I had already amassed more hands-on experience with this machine than anyone else on this thread, particularly the most obnoxious detractors. And since those persons had been trolling through all the previous threads apparently seeking any inconsistencies by which to attack my credibility, they had also obviously encountered the paragraph by which I discuss my qualifications, and for some reason continued to insist that I have said nothing and inform the others on this thread that I have said nothing.
That said, I stand by most everything I have said on any post. All of the points I listed at the beginning of this thread are repeated, and with greater clarity and detail, by Zavada in his 'Open Letter". I have also provided some material taken from the American Cinematographer Manual - a standard reference volume - which provides a third concurring opinion, particularly on the difficulties presented by generational loss, internegatives and the introduction of new film stocks. These concepts are accepted industry wide and have been for decades. All of the technical information provided by Zavada is peer-reviewable and correct.
David Josephs continues to be upset that I corrected his assumption that film cameras could switch frame rates instantaneously. They cannot and I explained why. He then says there's a switch on the camera that says you can actually do it. I had to explain that this meant that the camera was capable of "ramping" - that is gradually moving from one speed to the next. And that there are several "clues" within the Z-film which suggest that this switch was not engaged. David had been making calculations based on an incorrect assumption and he was corrected. That should have been the end of it.
David also denies that there was any NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film. He did not ask for a citation, preferring to again attack my credibility on this issue. But this analysis is discussed right in the Introduction to McKnight's "Breach Of Trust". I mentioned it not because I am an arrogant bullshit artist, but because I assumed that you already knew about it.
My mistake.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - David Healy - 29-08-2013
Jeff Carter Wrote:I feel I have to clear up a few misrepresentations.
In an earlier post on another thread I offered that I have operated an Oxberry aerial optical printer and more than once. I would not describe myself as an expert, but I knew people who were and had opportunities to watch them at work. By simply threading the projector and loading the camera for the first time in the printer room, I had already amassed more hands-on experience with this machine than anyone else on this thread, particularly the most obnoxious detractors. And since those persons had been trolling through all the previous threads apparently seeking any inconsistencies by which to attack my credibility, they had also obviously encountered the paragraph by which I discuss my qualifications, and for some reason continued to insist that I have said nothing and inform the others on this thread that I have said nothing.
That said, I stand by most everything I have said on any post. All of the points I listed at the beginning of this thread are repeated, and with greater clarity and detail, by Zavada in his 'Open Letter". I have also provided some material taken from the American Cinematographer Manual - a standard reference volume - which provides a third concurring opinion, particularly on the difficulties presented by generational loss, internegatives and the introduction of new film stocks. These concepts are accepted industry wide and have been for decades. All of the technical information provided by Zavada is peer-reviewable and correct.
David Josephs continues to be upset that I corrected his assumption that film cameras could switch frame rates instantaneously. They cannot and I explained why. He then says there's a switch on the camera that says you can actually do it. I had to explain that this meant that the camera was capable of "ramping" - that is gradually moving from one speed to the next. And that there are several "clues" within the Z-film which suggest that this switch was not engaged. David had been making calculations based on an incorrect assumption and he was corrected. That should have been the end of it.
David also denies that there was any NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film. He did not ask for a citation, preferring to again attack my credibility on this issue. But this analysis is discussed right in the Introduction to McKnight's "Breach Of Trust". I mentioned it not because I am an arrogant bullshit artist, but because I assumed that you already knew about it.
My mistake.
Well I for one am glad you cleared up a few of your misrepresentation(s) Jeffrey Carter, especially regarding your experience and qualifications. And I for one do not like dealing with lone nut, "obnoxious detractors"...and I have dealt with more than my share concerning this subject matter. Especially for someone that freely admits, on-the-record, I can't prove the Zapruder film is altered. So, I feel your pain... now, if you can only prove to me that you have the experience you now say you have, that of loading a simple process camera with reversal raw stock we'll of made significant progress.
Are you actually offended folks want to know what you've said in other threads here? You're a program "producer" guy, part of the M-E-D-I-A... is internet streaming now considered MSM?
Figured we'd finally get around to Roland Zavada sooner than later... anything other than double 8mm film manufacturing properties discussion is out of Roland's purview. He is not a motion picture production guy nor a film post-production effects guy. Rollie had to jump on a plane to Florida and talk with Ray Fielding about optical film lab printing. Am aside: Ray told me he wanted no part of the discussion, he did echo Rollie's mantra though: 8mm to 8mm optical special effects film printing is impossible. Think Rollie chose Fielding's brain for no good reason? I quote from Fielding's 1965 1st edition Special Effects Cinematography book extensively.
Your American Cinemtographer is a good play on your part, great opinions, nice manual for neophytes and those new to the industry (I prefer the magazine though)... Now, I reference SMPE/SMPTE journals (those as early as 1925), so did Ray Fielding, in fact the glossary is full of reference material concerning all types of opticial film printing techniques. These are those very people thatcreated the protocols and set standards for the film industry as a whole which, of course the American Cinematographer the magazine, the manual, and their membership discuss and adhere to. Roland Zavada is a member of SMPTE and guess who else?
You sure are running a lot of buzz words out this evening, peer-review for one. When did anyone, ANYONE from a legit, named Hollywood/LA, New York, Chicago, San Francisco film production-post production studio, optical film lab endorse Rolans Zavada's "Open Letter"? You can't be serious are you?
And don't drag out that old 8mm to 8mm to 8mm optical film printing is impossible debacle Rollie always drug out when confronted with optical film printing techniques that overwhelmed him. Orhis discussions with one of my fellow Univ.of Minn Zapruder Film Symposium presenters.
You say: "I stand by most everything I have said on any post." Let's hear about the OTHER than 'most' stuff!
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Magda Hassan - 29-08-2013
Jeff's qualifications are more than adequate to discuss the Z film. They are far better than most. As far as I can see in the thread he states that some alteration was possible but extensive alteration was highly unlikely. Cut the lone nut crap just because he isn't supporting your particular theory to the last detail. Make a better argument for your theory.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Peter Lemkin - 29-08-2013
Doug Horne on The Two NPIC Z-Film Events
The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film's Alteration
by Douglas P. Horne
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
[TABLE="width: 15, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Most Americans don't know anything about the two significant events involving the famous Zapruder film of President Kennedy's Assassination that took place back-to-back, on successive nights, at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, D.C. on the weekend immediately following JFK's assassination. But anyone evenly remotely interested in what is perhaps the key piece of film evidence in the Kennedy assassination what for decades was viewed as the "bedrock evidence" in the case, the "closest thing to ground truth" needs to become acquainted with what happened to Abraham Zapruder's home movie of JFK's assassination during the three days immediately following President Kennedy's death.
Why? Because the hottest debate raging within the JFK research community for the past several years is about whether the Zapruder film in the National Archives is an authentic film from which sound, scientific conclusions regarding JFK's assassination can be divined, or whether it is an altered film indicative of a government cover-up, which yields tainted and suspect information, and leads us to false conclusions, about what happened in Dealey Plaza. The resolution of this debate hinges on the answers to two essential questions: First, is the film's chain of custody immediately after the assassination what it has been purported to be for many years, or is it, in reality, quite different? Second, are there visual indications within the film's imagery which prove it has been tampered with, i.e., altered? If the film's chain of custody has been misrepresented for decades, and if the opportunity and means existed that weekend to alter the film, then suspect imagery within the film takes on a crucial new level of importance, and is not simply of academic interest.
This paper will first, and primarily, address questions about the chain of custody of the Zapruder film immediately following President Kennedy's assassination, for new scholarship teaches us that the actual chain of custody of Abraham Zapruder's home movie, from November 23rd-25th, 1963, is not anything close to what it was represented to be for years, and in fact indicates an extremely high level of interest in Abraham Zapruder's home movie by the U.S. government during the three days immediately following President Kennedy's assassination in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963. The relatively new chain of custody evidence presented here will not only prove that the camera original Zapruder film was in the custody of the CIA and Secret Service not LIFEmagazine from late Saturday evening through Monday morning that weekend, but is of such a provocative nature that it strongly suggests indeed, virtually proves the original film was altered that weekend, prior to the publication of any of the film's frames in LIFE magazine, and prior to its use by the Warren Commission. After the startling new facts about the Zapruder film's actual chain of custody are thoroughly explored, I will summarize briefly some of the key evidence indicating that the film's imagery has been altered.
[TABLE="width: 135, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Backstory
I served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) during the last 3 years of its 4-year lifespan, from August 1995-September 1998. I was hired as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records Team, and was promoted midway through my tour to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records. In addition to working with military records on Cuba and Vietnam, I was privileged to work extensively with the JFK medical evidence, and on all issues related to the Zapruder film. Before launching into the story of the two NPIC events with the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination, and my personal involvement in interviewing all three of the key NPIC witnesses, it's essential that the reader gain some familiarity with the historical background of the Zapruder film.
Even though Time, Inc. (more commonly referred to in this instance as LIFE magazine) had purchased the Zapruder film on November 25, 1963(the Monday following JFK's assassination) for $ 150,000.00, it was never shown publicly by Time, Inc. or LIFE as a motion picture. (Only selected still frames were published by LIFE, from time to time, on special occasions, when the magazine deemed it appropriate.) The Warren Commission staff studied a grainy, second-generation FBI copy of the film for seven days during late January and early February of 1964; again in April of 1964; and viewed the purported original on one day only February 25, 1964 when it was brought over by LIFE magazine, at the Commission's request. On March 6, 1975 a bootleg copy of the Zapruder film was shown on television, for the very first time, by ABC and the host of its program Good Night America, Geraldo Rivera; in the ensuing uproar about the film's 12-year suppression as a motion picture, Time, Inc. decided to rid itself of the albatross, and sold the film, and all rights, back to Abraham Zapruder's heirs for one dollar on April 9, 1975. Zapruder's heirs (the LMH Co.) subsequently placed the film in courtesy storage at the National Archives on June 29, 1978 so that it would be protected in a low temperature (25 degrees Fahrenheit), low humidity environment specifically designed for archival film storage. The legal status of the film became uncertain with the passage of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act on October 26, 1992, since the goal of the "JFK Records Act" was to seek out assassination records and place them in the National Archives, in a permanent new collection. Zapruder's heirs failed in their attempt to remove the film from courtesy storage on March 15, 1993, when the Archives decided that the terms of the courtesy storage agreement signed with the LMH Co. on July 10, 1978 were in possible conflict with the requirements of the JFK Records Act namely, securing assassination records for the American people in a special collection at the National Archives. The impasse was finally resolved on April 24, 1997, when the Review Board formally voted to designate the Zapruder film as an "assassination record," and to implement a legal "taking" of the film in order to preserve it in perpetuity, for the American people, as part of the JFK Records Collection. The "taking" was to be implemented on August 1, 1998. (The film never left the custody of the National Archives; August 1, 1998 was simply the date the film would be formally transferred from courtesy storage, and officially become part of the JFK Records Collection.) Well after the sunset of the ARRB's operations at the end of September 1998, a Justice Department binding arbitration panel decided on June 16, 1999 (by a split vote of 2-1) that Abraham Zapruder's heirs should be given sixteen million dollars in "just compensation" for the taking of the film by the U.S. government, and the U.S. Congress obediently ponied up the money. [1]
Strangely and inappropriately, in view of its windfall profit the LMH Co. (Zapruder's heirs) was allowed by the Justice Department to keep the copyright, and all of the legal control over use of the film's images that comes with the copyright. OnDecember 30, 1999 the LMH Co. contractually transferred the copyright for the Zapruder film, and all of its film holdings (including large format transparencies and various copies of the motion picture film), to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas,Texas. [2]
[TABLE="width: 135, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Prior to the implementation of the taking on August 1, 1998, the Review Board at my recommendation commissioned a limited authenticity study of the Zapruder film (based primarily on examination of its edge print, the markings and script imposed on the film at the factory where it was produced, and at the developing plant after it was exposed). The ARRB staff first approached the Eastman Kodak Co. for film assistance and advice in 1996, and asked in 1997 if Kodak would perform the Zapruder film study pro bono;Kodak agreed, and hired a noted retired Kodak film chemist, Mr. Roland Zavada, as a paid consultant to perform the one-man study. Mr. Zavada studied the film's edge print; perceived anomalies in the bleed-over imagery in the intersprocket area of the film; its forensic chain of custody on the day of JFK's assassination; and educated himself on the basic characteristics of Zapruder's Bell and Howell movie camera by purchasing several models and experimenting with them but at our request, he did not study the film's image content. Zavada's report was signed out on September 25, 1998, and arrived inWashington, D.C. on September 28th, two days before the ARRB shut down its operations on September 30th.
The Key Witnesses
During the summer of 1997, following the announcement that the film would be "taken" by the government, and while the authenticity study by Kodak was effectively already underway, the ARRB staff became aware that there were two formerCIA/NPIC employees who had, in 1963, worked with the Zapruder film at the Agency's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) immediately after JFK's assassination: their names wereHomer A. McMahon (the former Head of the NPIC Color Lab), and Morgan Bennett ("Ben") Hunter (his assistant at the time). The ARRB staff interviewed each man three times that summer, and I was present at all of those interviews. [3] I was the lead interviewer at the one interview that was recorded on audiotape this was my questioning of Homer A. McMahon at Archives II, in College Park,Maryland on July 14, 1997. The tape of that interview has been available to the American people through the JFK Records Collection at Archives II since November of 1998; I finally produced a long-overdue verbatim transcript of the interview in May of 2012, which I make available on request to anyone who is interested. ARRB staff interview reports written summaries were produced after each interview of these two NPIC employees, and those interview reports are also available to the public in the JFK Records Collection at Archives II. The activity McMahon and Hunter were involved in on the weekend following President Kennedy's assassination was the making of photographic enlargements from individual frames of the Zapruder film; the purpose of this activity was to support the creation of "briefing boards" that would be assembled by others at NPIC, using the color prints they made, for purposes and audiences unknown. The customer requesting the activity was the U.S. Secret Service. Homer McMahon, following the instructions of a person who identified himself as Secret Service agent "Bill Smith," presided over this "briefing board event" at NPIC. Unknown to the ARRB staff at the time, this round of interviews with Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter was only the first half of the story of what happened at NPIC the weekend of the assassination. I would not become aware of the second half of the story until 2009, about eleven and one-half years later.
Then, in February of 2009, I was contacted by JFK researcher Peter Janney of Massachusetts (author of Mary's Mosaic, 2012), who had just commenced a long series of interviews with a third former NPIC employee who had also participated in an NPIC "briefing board event" the weekend following JFK's assassination. This witness, who had spoken only briefly and cursorily to a few other JFK assassination researchers, was the prestigious Dino A. Brugioni, who had served as the Chief Information Officer (the "briefing board czar") at NPIC for about two-and-a-half decades; Mr. Brugioni was, and remains today, the world's foremost living expert on the U-2 and SR-71 aerial reconnaissance imagery, and on the Corona and early Keyhole satellite reconnaissance imagery; and when first contacted by Peter Janney, was already the author of several books, including Eyeball to Eyeball (an account of aerial reconnaissance during the Cuban Missile Crisis), and Photo Fakery. At Peter's request, I helped him develop an evolving list of questions for Mr. Brugioni, and also helped him evaluate the answers as they came in following each interview. Peter Janney conducted an exhaustive series of MP3-recorded telephonic interviews of Dino Brugioni throughout the late winter and spring of 2009 (seven interviews altogether, beginning on January 30th and ending on June 27th), [4] and the upshot was that without any doubt whatsoever, Mr. Brugioni presided over a distinctly different "briefing board event" at NPIC the weekend following the assassination, using a distinctly different Zapruder film. Mr. Brugioni, like Mr. McMahon, also presided over the making of enlargements blowup prints from individual frames of the Zapruder film, which were then mounted on briefing boards. But his work crew was entirely different than McMahon's; thenumbers of enlargements made differed significantly; the number of briefing boards made was different; and the format of the briefing boards made at Brugioni's event was distinctly different. Most significantly, the format of the Zapruder film delivered at Brugioni's NPIC event was distinctly different from the format of the Zapruder film delivered at McMahon's NPIC event. Yet each man believed, without any doubt, that he was working with the original film. And the two events occurred only one day apart. Mr. Brugioni was contacted again in 2011, and the information that he had previously provided in 2009 was reconfirmed by Peter Janney in an MP3-recorded interview at Mr. Brugioni's home on April 28, 2011; as well as in a four-hour-long HD video interview conducted by me on July 9, 2011. Mr. Brugioni's memory remained sharp, and his credibility high very high. Indeed, his good memory and credibility is recorded for posterity on the HD video recording.
[TABLE="width: 135, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
What the two NPIC events point to, the weekend immediately following President Kennedy's assassination, is a compartmentalized operation, in which the first NPIC work crew (Brugioni's) made briefing boards, using enlargements of individual frames from the true camera original Zapruder film; and in which the second NPIC work crew (McMahon's) also made briefing boards, the very next night, using enlargements of framesfrom an altered Zapruder film, masquerading as the camera original. I characterize the operation as compartmentalized because neither group was aware of the other group's activity that weekend, nor were they intended to be. At the time, back in 1963, both McMahon and Brugioni were each led to believe they were working with the "original film," but clearly, only one of them could have been. Fantastic, you say? Certainly. But all true. The evidence will be clearly laid out before you, below, along with an analysis of what the evidence likely means, and why.
Before I present to you a detailed summary of what happened at each of the two NPIC "briefing board events," let us examine what we thought we knew, before the two NPIC events were made known to us, about the Zapruder film's chain of custody during the critical four days following JFK's assassination. This short digression is vital to understanding the significance of the differences between the two versions of the Zapruder film delivered to NPIC the weekend following the assassination.
The Traditionally Understood Zapruder Film Chain of Custody, from Friday, November 22nd, 1963through Tuesday, November 26th, 1963
Here is the commonly-agreed-to chain of custody for the camera-original Zapruder film, as it was known prior toour new understanding of the implications of the two NPIC events:
Friday, November 22nd: Zapruder's home movie of the assassination was developed at the Kodak Plant in Dallas. When developed, it was a 16 mm wide, 25-foot-long "double 8" film, with sprocket holes running along both outside edges, and was unslit. What does this mean? Simply put, as shot in the camera, and then as developed, all "double 8" home movie films consisted of two 8mm wide image strips going in opposite directions, and upside down when compared to each other. The normal practice immediately following developing was for the developing lab to "split," or slit, the 16 mm wide film in half, vertically, and then join the two sides of the movie (known as the A side and the B side) together with a splice, so that it could be projected in an 8 mm home projector. A "double 8" movie that has been slit only has sprocket holes on one side (the left side), and is 50 feet long (instead of 25). In the case of the Zapruder film, the A side (family scenes) and the B side (the Kennedy assassination) were not initially split, or slit apart, so that Mr. Zapruder could get three copies (contact prints) exposed at another lab (the Jamieson film lab in Dallas), in Mr. Jamieson's 16 mm contact printer. That is, the 16 mm out-of-camera format (with opposing image strips going in opposite directions) was temporarily preserved on Friday afternoon, so that Zapruder's film could be copied.
Before departing for the Jamieson lab to have three contact prints exposed, the 16 mm wide, out-of-camera original was viewed once by the Production Supervisor (Mr. Chamberlain) and Mr. Zapruder, on a Kodak 16 mm processing inspection projector, at twice the normal projection speed to simply ensure that Zapruder had indeed captured the assassination on film. [5]
Following his return from the Jamieson lab with the three exposed contact prints, all three contact prints were developed at the Kodak Plant in Dallas. After the three dupes were found satisfactory, the original film was slit down the middle to 8 mm in width, and the two halves of the movie spliced together, end-to-end (per normal procedure). The original film, now 8mm in width, was viewed at least twice on an 8 mm projector by several laboratory personnel (including Production Supervisor Phil Chamberlain, and Customer Service Manager Dick Blair), Mr. Zapruder, and his attorney. [6] At least one of the three dupes was also viewed, and was noted to have a "softer" focus than the original film (as would be expected).
Zapruder departed Kodak's Dallas Plant at about 9 PM, and turned over two of the three "first day copies" to the Secret Service. One was sent toWashington, D.C. to Secret Service Headquarters by Dallas Secret Service agent Max Phillips, who placed it on a commercial flight late Friday night. It arrived in Washington after midnight, and sometime before dawn, on Saturday, 11/23/63. The second "same day copy" relinquished to the Secret Service by Zapruder on Friday night was loaned by the Secret Service to the FBI in Dallas the next day, on Saturday; and then flown by the Dallas office of the FBI to FBI headquarters, in Washington, on Saturday evening. [7]
[TABLE="width: 135, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Zapruder went home Friday night with the camera-original film, and one of the "first day copies" in his possession. He was contacted on the phone late Friday night by Richard Stolley, LIFE magazine's Pacific Coast editor out ofLos Angeles, and Zapruder agreed to meet with Mr. Stolley and discuss the film's potential sale the next morning in his office.
We have now accounted for the whereabouts of all three "first day copies" that weekend. However, the primary focus in this paper should remain on the original film. ARRB consultant Roland Zavada's formal conclusion in his report was this: "After the dupes were found satisfactory, the original film was slit to 8 mm." [8] There was absolutely no doubt in his mind about this, for he had interviewed the surviving employees from the Kodak Plant in Dallas, and both high level supervisors present that day concurred in this.
Saturday, November 23rd:
Abraham Zapruder met with Secret Service officials and Mr. Stolley of LIFE in his office on Saturday morning, 11/23/63, and projected the original film for them on his 8 mm projector. [9]
He then struck a deal with Richard Stolley, selling to LIFE, for $50,000.00, worldwide print media rights to the assassination movie (but not motion picture rights). Zapruder agreed in this initial contract that he would not exploit the film as a motion picture, himself, until Friday, November 29th. Zapruder immediately relinquished the camera-original film to LIFE for a six day period, and kept in his possession the one remaining "same day copy." By the terms of this initial contract with LIFE, Zapruder was to have the original film returned to him by LIFE on or about November 29th, and in exchange he was then to give LIFE the remaining first day copy. [10]
Richard Stolley immediately put the film on a commercial flight bound for Chicago, where LIFE's principal printing plant was located. [11] The presses for the November 29th edition had been stopped on Friday, the day of the assassination, and the plan was to make major use of the imagery from Zapruder's film as the issue was reconfigured.
Now, here is the doubtful part of the chain of custody story that will require modification after we study the two NPIC events the weekend of the assassination: the traditional belief, for decades, was that the original Zapruder film remained withLIFE in Chicago from early Saturday evening, until Tuesday, November 26th, when the first issues of the reconfigured November 29th issue began to appear on local newsstands. The principal reference supporting this traditional view of the Zapruder film's chain of custody, from Saturday through Tuesday, has been pgs. 311-318 of Loudon Wainwright's 1986 memoir, titled The Great American Magazine: An Inside History of LIFE. In his book, Wainwright recounts hearsay passed along to him from others at LIFE about how the film was processed in Chicago who was on the team that prepared the use of blowups from the film, how they worked on the layout, etc. [12] The magazine was actually printed at Chicago's R. R. Donnelly and Company printing plant; prior to the actual layout and graphics work at the printing plant, numerous 8 x 10 inch prints were run off at a separate Chicago photo lab. [13] We shall further discuss the activities in Chicago, and what was actually published in the November 29th issue, toward the end of this article. The only part of the Chicago story that is subject to doubt is the exact timing of when the LIFE editorial and technical team actually performed its layout of the Zapruder frames for the November 29th issue: was it actually Saturday night, or was it really Sunday night, or perhaps even early Monday morning before dawn?
Sunday, November 24th: On Sunday evening, Richard Stolley, on behalf of LIFE, approached Abraham Zapruder on the phone and requested that they meet to negotiate LIFE's acquisition of additional rights to the film. "Something" had happened that caused the magazine to seek all rights to the film, including motion picture rights, and outright ownership of both the original film, and all copies. These additional rights would prove extremely expensive to Time, Inc., LIFE magazine's parent company.
[TABLE="width: 135, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Monday, November 25th: After the conclusion of President Kennedy's funeral on Monday the funeral ended at about 2 PM Dallas time (CST), with Air Force One flying over the gravesite at 2:54 PM EST, and with the former First Lady, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, lighting the eternal flame at 3:13 PM EST Stolley, Zapruder, and his attorney for this purpose, Sam Passman, met to renegotiate the sale contract for the film. Earlier that day, LIFE's publisher, C.D. Jackson, had relayed to Stolley the formal approval of the Board of Time, Inc. for him to renegotiate the contract. [14]
For a renegotiated total price of $150,000.00 ($100,000.00 more than the original contract signed on Saturday), Time, Inc. now gained all rights to the Zapruder film's imagery (domestic and foreign; and newsreel, television, and motion picture); andpermanent ownership of the original and all three copies of the "8 mm color films," thus erasing any doubt that the original and the copies had been slit to 8 mm on Friday. In addition, the new contract stipulated that Time, Inc. would pay to Zapruder an amount equal to one half of all gross receipts for use of the film, above and beyond the new $150,000.00 sale price. (The contract stipulated that Time, Inc. would also own the two "first-day copies" that Zapruder had loaned to the Secret Service, once they were returned; they never were returned.) [15]
Tuesday, November 26th: The first newsstand copies of the November 29th issue of LIFE began to trickle out; the issue displayed a total of 31 fuzzy, poor resolution, black-and-white images of blowups from individual frames of the film. [16] Twenty-eight of them were quite small; two were medium sized; and one was a large format reproduction. What is hard to understand, in retrospect, is why LIFE magazine published such muddy, indistinct images of a film that its parent company, Time Inc., had spent an additional $100,000.00 to repurchase. We will revisit this question following our examination of the two NPIC "briefing board events," below.
NPIC EVENT # 1 (Presided over by Dino Brugioni)
The summary below recapitulates information gleaned from the seven recorded (MP3) Peter Janney-Dino Brugioni interviews in 2009; an eighth recorded (MP3) Peter Janney-Dino Brugioni interview on April 28, 2011; and my own HD video interview of Mr. Brugioni on July 9, 2011.
Time and date: This event commenced about 10 PM, EST, on Saturday evening, 11/23/63, when two Secret Service officials (estimated to be in their late 30s or early 40s) brought an 8 mm home movie of the JFK assassination to the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center, located in building 213 in the Washington Navy Yard. (At no time could Mr. Brugioni recall either of their names.) They had not yet seen the film themselves, and Mr. Brugioni is of the distinct impression that they had just gotten off of an airplane and had come directly to NPIC from the airport. They did not volunteer where they had come from, or where the film had come from. The event at NPIC went on all night long, until about dawn on Sunday, November 24th. [Note: The home movie of the assassination brought to NPIC by the two Secret Service officials was not copied as a motion picture that night; nor did NPIC even have the capability to do so.]
How notified: Dino Brugioni was the Duty Officer at NPIC that weekend, and was personally notified about the impending visit by NPIC's Director, the legendary Arthur C. Lundahl. Lundahl, in turn, had been notified by CIA Director John McCone that the Secret Service would be bringing in a film, and would require NPIC's assistance.
Work crew called in (and not called in): Mr. Brugioni personally notified and called in, as his primary assistants, Mr. Bill Banfield (the Head of the Photography and the Graphics Departments), and Ralph Pearse, the Lead Photogrammatrist at NPIC. Bill Banfield had in turn ordered in 3 or 4 photo technicians, and 2 or 3 people from the graphics department, to assist in the work that evening. During the course of several interviews, Mr. Brugioni was asked whether any of the following people were present, and he emphatically stated that they were not: neither Captain Pierre Sands, U.S. Navy; Homer A McMahon; nor Morgan Bennett ("Ben") Hunter was present that night, according to Mr. Brugioni. He was quite certain, and unequivocal, about this. When asked if he had sighted, and knew, the photography and graphics technicians assisting the management team that night, he affirmed that he had indeed seen them that night, and that none of them were either Homer McMahon, or Ben Hunter. (Brugioni knew both men, and knew Ben Hunter particularly well.)
this is only a SMALL part which continues at [URL="http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.cz/2013/01/doug-horne-on-two-npic-z-film-events.html"]http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.cz/2013/01/doug-horne-on-two-npic-z-film-events.html
.[/URL]..but, it ends with:
And the rest is history. Now, through the magic of high resolution digital scans technology undreamed of in 1963, in an analog world the forgery and fraud of November, 1963 is being exposed, slowly but surely. Alterations that were "good enough" to hold up on a flimsy, portable 8 mm movie screen back in 1963, look quite bad very crude today, under the magnifying glass of today's digital technology.
The two back-to-back "briefing board events" the weekend of President Kennedy's assassination at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, D.C. compartmentalized operationsbracketing the Zapruder film's alteration at the "Hawkeyeworks" lab in Rochester, N.Y. are the signposts that illuminate for us, like two spotlights piercing the night sky, the hijacking of our nation's history almost 49 years ago.
The Zapruder film was altered by the U.S. government, using clandestine, state-of-the-art Kodak resources in Rochester, to remove the most egregious evidence within the film of shots that came from in front of JFK's limousine. The true exit wound in the rear of his head was blacked out in many frames; frames showing exit debris from the fatal head shot propelled violently to the left rear were removed from the film; and a false "exit wound" was added to many of the image frames, in an attempt to support the lone assassin cover story.
The altered film is one of the strongest proofs of a massive government cover-up following President Kennedy's death, and the intelligence community's third party surrogates are doing all they can, today, to deny that the film was ever altered, and discredit this story. I believe the facts speak for themselves.
I will close now with this cautionary quote for those skeptics, unwilling to let go of a discredited paradigm, who still feel compelled to defend the Zapruder film's authenticity:
"It is misleading to claim that scientific advances and scholarly experiments can cause all photo fakes to be unmasked. Questions about authenticity remain. Many photos that once were considered genuine have recently been determined to be faked."
~ Dino Brugioni, author of Photofakery: the History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation, 1999
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Charles Drago - 29-08-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:You're on to something very important here. Those of us who have toiled in the fields of JFK assassination research -- in some cases for decades -- are all too familiar with the cover-up Facilitators' tactic of re-introducing long-settled arguments for the purposes of spreading disinformation, prolonging the faux debate, and stirring up old, research community-fracturing disagreements.
In the past I have been, shall we say, other than avuncular in my reactions to those who, in my opinion, service the cover-up in such a manner. I will neither speak for nor attempt to condone the behavior of those who reacted violently to Jeff -- researchers whose Z-film work (and indeed their very characters) have been savaged by the Facilitators who troll the Internet. Rather, I simply point out that decades of conflict can harden a person and stifle the better angels of his or her nature.
Albert Rossi Wrote:But perhaps the time for me to part company has also arrived.
To those of you with whom I have exchanged what I believe have been friendly and fruitful words, my gratitude.Charles Drago Wrote:Please reconsider this course of action, Albert. I submit that we are at war with the killers of JFK and the monstrous perpetrators of other deep political acts considered on DPF. If need be, withdraw from the field to a rear area for a brief time. But your services, sir, are required on the front lines.
Your comrades await.
To which I reply, Jeff Carter did not kill JFK and the attacks on him are not proportionate.
Agreed. I've read his posts and analyzed them to the best of my nearly non-existent technical knowledge and with my relatively sophisticated deep political insight fully applied. In re the latter I have made note of the timing and tone of his contributions and applied other metrics, if you will, common to the discipline after which this forum is named.
For whatever it is worth to the world, I cannot in good conscience accuse Jeff of any "crimes" more serious than deep political naivete and, at times, poor reasoning.
I've said and written that no one enjoys more intimate knowledge of sin than a sinner. Thus in all fairness I will not cast any stones: I will not take David Healy (a comrade of long standing) or David Josephs (with whom I have disagreed, at times violently, in the past) to task for the at-times aggressive and impatient tones of their respective responses.
As you've noted elsewhere, Jan, we all have our personal boiling points. How many times can we reasonably be expected to the make the same sound, complex arguments and refute the same unsound, simple-minded arguments before we reach that point?
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:And Albert Rossi has contributed much in his short time here at DPF. I share his disgust at the manner in which the arguments in this thread have been made.
As you know, I've reached out to Albert publicly and privately to urge him to reconsider. He has responded privately, so I'm not at liberty to share his thoughts as expressed in those communications. And now I once again ask Albert to rejoin his comrades here at DPF who have enjoyed and learned much from his contributions to date.
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Researchers need thick skins.
Hypotheses need testing against the known and potential evidence.
Agreed. Heartily agreed!
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Researchers don't need abuse from the research community.
And that is what I see here.
Ahh, but the wolves come to us in the fine wool garments of researchers.
Here we just may have reached the core of the greater disagreement that weakens our friendship.
I submit that your expectations regarding DPF are unrealizable.
By the very nature of the subject matter it is dedicated to exploring and exposing, DPF does not and indeed cannot ever exist as a pure deep politics research e-institution.
Why? Because the forces we would help eradicate will not play by our rules or any others but their own. They do, however, see vulnerabilities in DPF rules and do not hesitate to exploit them. They take and make opportunities to disrupt, disinform, and degrade us individually and collectively. They pit us against each other. The sophistication and virulence of their methods increases in direct proportion to their perceptions of the level of threats posed by DPF to their masters.
By the way, none of us should be surprised by this reality -- by what we "see here".
Jesus asked, "But what did you go out into the wilderness to see? A man dressed in soft clothing?" (Luke 7:24)
I had no such expectations when I went out in the wilderness of mirrors.
To be clear: I do not suggest that we should abandon decorum in our exchanges.
But forget at your own grave peril that we remain at war with the killers of JFK, and that one way of describing what we're doing here is returning the fire that erupted in Dealey Plaza.
Such bellicosity to describe a struggle that is, for us and by choice, non-violent! Yet as Gandhi taught us, "Non-violence is a weapon of the strong."
A weapon. And weapons are used in wars.
Gandhi wrote, "Whereas a good deed should call forth approbation and a wicked deed disapprobation, the doer of the deed, whether good or wicked, always deserves respect or pity as the case may be. 'Hate the sin and not the sinner' ... It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself. For we are all tarred with the same brush, and are children of one and the same Creator."
I've published my own humble take on this as follows: Until the life of the terrorist is held to be as sacred as the life of the terrorized, the terror will continue.
(I mention in passing that this position of mine has been vehemently decried by some of the DPF founders who are most disturbed by the vitriolic nature of some of my posts.)
This is very difficult for me. Apparent contradictions abound. Even, it appears, for Gandhi; the man who wrote "Hate the sin and not the sinner," also told us that "I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence....I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence ..."
In a literary endeavor such as DPF, our non-violent weapon of choice is rhetorical in nature. Hence so much (but not, alas, all) of my own weaponized prose is deeply considered and carefully targeted -- and always has been.
I will not hesitate to use irony, metaphor, logos, pathos, ethos, hyperbole, understatement, and every other rhetorical device at my humble command to wage this war. I will not hesitate to incorporate praise, ridicule, comfort, threat, satire, etc. into my rhetorical assaults on perceived enemies.
Of course the risk here, common to all who would wage war of any description, is that of loss of control. And thus I have sinned. Repeatedly.
I warmly welcome your thoughts, Jan, and those of all other correspondents of good will. And, for that matter, those who bear us ill will.
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Charles Drago - 29-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Albert Rossi would like DPF to be more like an academic conversation, as I understand him. Of course, the model for such a discussion is Peter Dale Scott. Would that we were able to live up to his model.
A word of reminder. Internet forums are composed of people who for the most part will never meet each other. There is something about meeting the other in the fullness of their life. But even more, the academy is composed of people who who may need jobs, need to keep jobs, and/or may need to get a job from someone they are disagreeing with. All of these serve to temper the conversaton. Academia is far from perfect. There battles there as well.
I wish Albert would come back knowing the world of forums such as DPF is just going to be more rough and tumble, and that things have a way of working themselves out -- as they are in this thread. Albert, if you are stil reading this, come on back. Minds sometimes are changed; the road is just a little rougher. Your voice has been an important one and, to my mind, you belong here.
Here.
Hear, hear!
Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely - Michael Cross - 29-08-2013
Jim Hackett II Wrote:The one with the complicit treason of the Praetorian Guard.....leaving no doubt as to who done what to whom.
Given the number of well versed researchers here (and well respected - by this poster), I'm curious: How credible is the existence of the "second version" film? I'm assuming most of us will never have the opportunity to view such a thing, and wondering how anyone is so privileged as to get a look.