Are there statements from Kodak employees who saw the Zfilm friday?

[David Josephs]

As I continue to look I find that every reference to that weekend has to do with SLIT v UNSLIT.... Not what was seen.... in it's entirety.

Is there any evidence from these extremely key witnesses to what should be the viewing of the ORIGINAL FILM?
Horne talks about Chamberlain... yet most reports have from a few to 18 employees seeing this film....

I need to continue digging and will develop this further... The question I have is if we actually wanted to know what was seen.... how did the HSCA and ARRB, and all the non-government research done... how do we not have an account of what was seen that afternoon at Kodak, or the next day at Zaps.... maybe also explains why Zap only got to see FRAMES and hot his film...

DJ


http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html#_edn5
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]

[5] Roland J. Zavada, Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence (September 25, 1998), Attachment A1-8 (Meeting Minutes of Discussion between Roland Zavada, Phil Chamberlain, and Dick Blair), and Attachment A1-11 (Phil Chamberlain's original manuscript regarding events related to the handling and processing of the Zapruder film at the Kodak Plant in Dallas).

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/zat1-8.pdf A1-8 "When A. Zapruder arrived at the Labratory, he was alone."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/zat1-11.pdf A1-11 "Zapruder was alone, and gave every indication that he had come to thelab on his own volition, not because of urging by someone else"

"Even at the high speed, we could see the results, including the infamous frame where the top of Kennedy's head was blown off. And then nothing but blank film, where Zapruder(3) had run off the rest of the roll to take out of the camera."

(3)Actually, Dick Blair wound off the rest of the film and removed it from the camera.

"Early on Saturday, two FBI agents showed up, with one of the copies of the Zapruder film. I don't know how they were aware of theexistence of the film, or how they obtained a copy."

"I have no way of knowing whether or not a frame from the original actually was lost. I do know that therer were two(8) Type-A copies that contained all the frames from the original film.

You know, I wonder what ever became of those two Type-A copies?? (9)

2:45 pm - Osborn & Jones drive Zapruder party to Kodak,arriving before 3 pm. -Trask, 106;Wrone, 21; Zavada Report, Study 1

http://www.jfk-info.com/thomp2.htm
2:15 pm
A police car takes Sorr[B]els, Schwartz, Zapruder and McCormick to the Kodak plant. Z[/B]apruder makes arrangements for the processing of the film. Phil Willis meets Sorrels at the Kodak plant and also agrees to furnish the Secret Service with copies of his 35 mm. slides. Sorrels gets a phone call and leaves for Dallas Police Headquarters.
3:15 pm (est.)
The processed film is shown to fifteen to eighteen people. To have copies made, Zapruder must take camera original to Jamieson Company.


[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[David Josephs]

And the SS agent just agrees?

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/zat1-1e.pdf


How is this even possible unless in the context of a complete obstruction of justice.....

Examie that statement again.... the SS basically agrees that a private citizen can sell evidence in a murder case to the highest bidder...
So if it had been Truly who had found the rifle... "sorry boys, gonna get a pretty penny for the actual murder weapon found in MY building... but here, you can take a few photos...."

The SS TOOK the body at gunpoint... yet was cool with letting Zap keep his film.


The deep politics of that decision alone make my mind spin.
DJ

[LR Trotter]

Good point(s) IMO. I still feel amazed at the number of cameras, both film and photo, in use in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/'63. Some 14 months earlier I witnessed a JFK motorcade and do not recall seeing any, nor any films/photos from that area that day. Admittedly, a straight road/street location at about 3400 Main St/Houston, but I was among hundreds of HS students as well as numerous teachers from the school 2 blocks away. Although I remember the small plane flying over the JFK limo pulling a banter that read, "Enforce The Monroe Doctrine". Another memory, is JFK was not down in the seat, but was sitting on the seat top/trunk area. I don't recall any other rear seat passengers in the limo.

:what:

[David Josephs]

From what I can tell, not a single Kodak employee was called to testify or make a statement prior to the ARRB.

and years later a Jack Cook has a copy of the film made in 1963.... that is requested by Zavada and written about by Dick Blair...

"Jack Cook thinks he has an 8mm Kodachrome movie film which was processed in Dallas in 1963"

and I have yet to find out what happens with that.... any help?

Do we not find it strange that there isn't a 2nd gen story about "Dad" who worked on the film and saw it that day...
or is the absence of such proof enough?

DJ

[David Josephs]

Thanks for joining me in this search for some truth....

There are MANY versions of the Zfilm timeline... Some overlap for sure, many ommissions, and some things unique to each offering.

What we know for sure is that whatever Dino and Arthur worked on Saturday night - their resulting presentation is gone to history and is not the same as the Homer/Ben boards in the archives.
But do we know that THIS was the actual original film... 0183... when late friday night SS Chief Rowley receives a copy of the film from Sorrels via Philips.
Which was this film?

Zapruder had the original and BEST COPY (#018?) which he subsequently gave to Stolley)
FBI had 0186 (whether 16mm or 8mm is not known for sure - Phil@Kodak says they used a projector that aollowed stop, slow, backward, etc... which to his recollection was only in 16mm format)
Sorrels has 0185 and 0187 - both of which no longer have that deisgnation on the entire length of the films available
Max Phillips sends "the third copy" to Rowley (#018?)

Note: Disregard personnel scenes
shown on Mr. Zapruder's film.. Mr. Zapruder
is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints
were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date.
The third print is forwarded.

As I have stated before... this APPEARS as if there is a 4th copy. And we have very little info on what becomes of these other two copies


=====

What we have TODAY is:

The "original" in the archives... only 6'3" of images, followed by 2'7" of BLACK film, a SPLICE and 19'3" of BLACK film. 0183 does not appear on any portion of this film yet appears as a copy thru on the SS versions.


Frank Sloan of Jamieson tells us that 0183 was at the END of the film being copied and was transferred onto these copies.


We will remain clear of the "1st day copies" since their chain of evidence is even more dubious and if we show how the "original" becomes the "altered master" the SS copies take care of themselves.

Zavada was charged to:
"Write a techincal report.... on the Zapruders films at the National Archives designated as "out-of-the-camera" original and the two first-generation SS copies...." (my emphasis)

===

Background lesson over :-)
===

WHEN was the processed camera original out of Zapruder's sight/hands so that a switch could be made?....

There are a number of breaks in the Chain of Possession as David Healy eluded to at the end of the Muchmore thread.


Phil tells us http://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-11.pdf that while the film was being processed - a 1 hr process - Zapruder was outside talking and walking around nervously...
He was NOT IN THE ROOM.

The statment Phil C and Dick B signed can be found at this post with an explanation about how it simply does not says what might have thought it said
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post75076


It does not say duplicates were not made AT KODAK... and it contradicts the intent that only those who handled the film in the ordinary course of their job saw the film...
Approximately 11 other "staff members" were included in the Inspection Screening... according to Phil C.

This film, shown only once at 4 times normal speed (64-72fps) would fly by at break-neck speed and still be unstabilized so very jumpy... (the stabilized version we see is at a slower frame rate than 18.3... so it minimizes these jumps... if you watch the film at 18.3 the jumps forward in the film (not Zapruder's jumps) during the shooting sequences are very pronounced.)

There are many out there who have done amazing work contacting primary sources...
Other than Blair, Chamberlain, & Zapruder (no mention of Schwartz) there are approximately 8-12 more people who saw that film at that time.
Any help?


We have now gotten from 12:30pm to 4pm and have learned that Zapruder could not have know what occurred in the processing room and when he returns later the very next film index number, 0184 was skipped.
0185 and 0187 do not appear on either of these films while 0186 does.

Phil tells us that only 2 rolls were given to Zapruder yet defers to Dick Blair who supposedly went to get the film himself.... AND signs the statements.

This is where the timelines get muddy.... Phil states that Zapruder is back around 5pm with the TWO rolls of film. By 6pm they are watching what is described as "soft, or fuzzy, compared to the original, but really of good quality considering the circumstances"

?? huh ?? the "circumstances" ? Will need to dig further here since a first generation copy of the original SHOULD be a pretty amazing copy... maybe to this expert the copy was obviously degraded... Phil describes the headshot again and Jackie on the trunk -

So now we have gotten from 4pm to 6pm with anywhere from 3 to 5 films in existence... an original and 2-4 copies. 0184 is still not accounted for.
To the very end of his statement Phil Chamberlain Jr believes there were only TWO copies on IIA film and they were complete...

One would think, for posterity, someone would have taken a photo of Zapruder and his copies.... y'know a group hug kinda thing at Kodak... but no such luck.

While there are signed statements to the effect that only 1083,5,6,7 are printed and slit....
We also have TWO signed statements that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser.

There are a number of times just between 12:30 and 6pm on the 22nd to have created a useable "master" copy of the in-camera film
We'll look at 6pm until 9am next

DJ

[Tracy Riddle]

Good point(s) IMO. I still feel amazed at the number of cameras, both film and photo, in use in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/'63. Some 14 months earlier I witnessed a JFK motorcade and do not recall seeing any, nor any films/photos from that area that day.

I'm amazed at how few photos I've been able to find of JFK in the Ft. Worth, San Antonio and Houston motorcades. There should be plenty of them out there. Kennedy was in over 30 motorcades during his Presidency, by my count. And there aren't that many photos and videos of them, aside from Dallas.

[Jeff Carter]

The claim of private property rights to such an important piece of evidence seems absurd on its face. I suspect it served as an excuse explaining why access to the film was so relatively limited. I have no problem believing that the camera original was at NPIC over the weekend, and in fact it should have been as part of an investigation into a major crime.

I have a hard time believing that the camera original was ever projected, or if it was, not more than once or twice. 8mm film is easily scratched and even a single trip through a projector runs the risk of damage. The high speed machine at the lab is a common piece of gear used to ensure developed film has no processing flaws, and it built to ensure there is no risk of scratching. Anyone on scene who had their wits about them, would have insisted a copy be immediately made for actual viewing.

While the film was at Kodak, Zapruder popped over to the WFAA studios and appeared on television.

I don't buy the story about limiting the viewing of the Zapruder film to the Commission because of concerns over burning the film. A single trip through an 8mm projector risked scratching the film, and, if truly concerned and if it was truly the camera original, the stewards of the film would not have allowed any projection. This possibly served as an excuse to limit the viewing. The Commission should have had a copy of the film during the entire time of their work, and the claim that LIFE owned it and so it was inaccessible seems a cover.

Interestingly, the CBS Warren Commission news special from 1967 features an editorial by Walter Cronkite where he criticizes LIFE for refusing to allow CBS access to the film. He questions private property rights against the right to know.

Film alteration to the extent that a patch was added to cover the back of Kennedy's head following the fatal shot, and also perhaps the pink cloud at 313, could have been done relatively easily and in an afternoon. It appears that Sunday Nov 24 might have seen that work. Film alteration beyond that leaves me with serious reservations.

In my opinion, the concern with the Zapruder film was to limit its accessibility, primarily because of the backwards movement of Kennedy's body, which could not be explained against the lone nut hypothesis.

David, if Zapruder switched his camera to 48fps before picking up the motorcade again at Z133, then the frame rate would have had to stay at 48fps right through to the final frame.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Film alteration to the extent that a patch was added to cover the back of Kennedy's head following the fatal shot, and also perhaps the pink cloud at 313, could have been done relatively easily and in an afternoon. It appears that Sunday Nov 24 might have seen that work. Film alteration beyond that leaves me with serious reservations.

Jeff - I agree, as argued in the thread below:

The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film's Alteration

In practical and logistical terms, such alteration is possible in the known NPIC timeframe.

It would serve the purpose of obfuscating the primary visual evidence of Zapruder: clues as to the directions from which the bullets came.

Beyond that, there are the discussions in this complex and important thread:

Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film.

[David Josephs]

requoted and addressed in red below

The claim of private property rights tosuch an important piece of evidence seems absurd on its face. I suspect itserved as an excuse explaining why access to the film was so relativelylimited. I have no problem believing that the camera original was at NPIC overthe weekend, and in fact it should have been as part of an investigation into amajor crime.
Except the CIA claims they did not have any contact or interest in the Zapruder film… that has ALWAYS been their stance… NPIC was created by the CIA/DoD in 1960 as a result of Kirkpatrick Joint Study Group recommendations. We also come to find that the film given to Homer on Sunday was "processed" at theCIA/Kodak facility in Rochester NY Hawkeye works.
According to the stories told, the original went from Zapruder to Stolley to Chicago to NY, all in the possession of LIFE.

I have a hard time believing that the camera original was ever projected, or ifit was, not more than once or twice. 8mm film is easily scratched and even asingle trip through a projector runs the risk of damage. The high speed machineat the lab is a common piece of gear used to ensure developed film has noprocessing flaws, and it built to ensure there is no risk of scratching. Anyoneon scene who had their wits about them, would have insisted a copy beimmediately made for actual viewing.
According to Phil Chamberlain Jr - the 16mm unslit original film was shown ONCE on the inspection projector at 4x speed. It is not known whether THAT FILM was ever shown again.

While the film was at Kodak, Zapruder popped over to the WFAA studios andappeared on television.
That's not correct. Zapruder went to Dallas Morn News who could NOT process film. He went next to WFAA and did a short interview. Sorrels has DPD Officers Osborne and JB Jones take the entire group, including Sorrels, to KODAK, after theinterview…. Sorrels leaves to talk withOswald back at DPD while the Film is being developed and printed leaving NO SS AGENTS AT KODAK… How did he get back to DPD?

I don't buy the story about limiting the viewing of the Zapruder film to theCommission because of concerns over burning the film. A single trip through an8mm projector risked scratching the film, and, if truly concerned and if it wastruly the camera original, the stewards of the film would not have allowed anyprojection. This possibly served as an excuse to limit the viewing. TheCommission should have had a copy of the film during the entire time of theirwork, and the claim that LIFE owned it and so it was inaccessible seems acover.
The film shown in January 1964 was a 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] or 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] gen copy and was deemed not good enough.
The film shown on Feb 25[SUP]th[/SUP] 1964 was supposedly the LIFE original. I am checking on that.

Interestingly, the CBS Warren Commission news special from 1967 features aneditorial by Walter Cronkite where he criticizes LIFE for refusing to allow CBSaccess to the film. He questions private property rights against the right toknow.

Film alteration to the extent that a patch was added to cover the back ofKennedy's head following the fatal shot, and also perhaps the pink cloud at313, could have been done relatively easily and in an afternoon. It appearsthat Sunday Nov 24 might have seen that work. Film alteration beyond that leavesme with serious reservations.
With all due respect, there are a number of physical impossibilities that occur which cannot be removed via the painting process you mention (nor is what you mention all that "easy") The most obvious ones occur between 285 and 325. The removal of the limo "pause" we will call it, which in turn removed the frames where debris is seen leaving the BACK of JFK's head is wholesale alteration. The movement of Greer is physically impossible in the time/frames given. And finally, there is very strong evidence of a shot occurring well pastthe z313 location.
I agree that the paint over portion of the alteration is most obvious and much easier to accomplish than the removal of frames… I simply suggest you dive into the available research already done to illustrate the Zfilm problems… There are a number of conclusions though thatI still cannot agree with…such as the time it takes to get to a completely altered film and some of the anomalies offered.

In my opinion, the concern with the Zapruder film was to limit itsaccessibility, primarily because of the backwards movement of Kennedy's body,which could not be explained against the lone nut hypothesis.


Consider this Jeff…. Why would the SS allow the Zfilm even after Sorrels sees what it showed, which HAD to include the obvious shots from the front out of their sight unless they KNEW it would serve as the timestamp and authenticated evidence of what happened… after it was fixed.

By allowing the Zfilm to be considered AUTHENTICATED AS EVIDENCE with a believable chain of possession to those who don't look too hard… frames from this film MUST be what happened…yet if one watches even the altered film one is struck by the impossibility of at least one shot coming from the front… the impossibility of the SBT (go look at CD298 for the FBI explanation/modelof the shots and ask yourself where did they get their info) and what occurred prior to 171.

David, if Zapruder switched his camera to 48fps before picking up the motorcadeagain at Z133, then the frame rate would have had to stay at 48fps rightthrough to the final frame.
I'm not sure about that. The button on the camera allowed for the immediate switch from normal to slo-mo. In fact here is the page out of the manual…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5149[/ATTACH]


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

[Magda Hassan]

The claim of private property rights to such an important piece of evidence seems absurd on its face.

Quite. And those property rights were definitely ignored with many other camera owners in Dealy Plaza that day who never got their property returned like Beverly Oliver.