Josiah Thompson - Who Was the Umbrella Man?

[Royell Storing]

Hi Dan, Thank you for your input; however, SSA Smith brought a 16mm Zapruder film; the original and the three copies were all 8mm. Can you explain the difference? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael

     Michael - And as you well know, CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni was completely cut out of the loop regarding this Sunday examination of the 16mm Zapruder Film and the Briefing Boards that were constructed from it.

[Michael Welch]

     Michael - And as you well know, CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni was completely cut out of the loop regarding this Sunday examination of the 16mm Zapruder Film and the Briefing Boards that were constructed from it.

Hi Royell, Thank you for your valuable input my friend! And as you know completely cut out of the loop meant more than participating; it meant he was never ever told about it period, even though he was the Duty Officer for the weekend of the 23rd and the 24th! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael

[Dan O'meara]

Hi Dan, Thank you for your input; however, SSA Smith brought a 16mm Zapruder film; the original and the three copies were all 8mm. Can you explain the difference? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael

When the Z-film was initially processed it was a 16mm unslit film. Three copies, all 16mm, were made from this original.
As part of his initial 1993 report, Roland Zavada makes the following observation:

Prints of the Zapruder Camera Original

FBI or Secret Service Print: A print, 1 of 3 prints, made of the Zapruder 8mm camera film prior to slitting was reported to have been printed by the Jamieson Film Company. The print was unslit and our very casual examination show’s a significant loss of color image quality, compared to the original, for undetermined causes. (Printer timing or storage??) The group also identified some damage due to handling such as perforation damage and an area of "burn through or melting" possibly due to high intensity light.

After reviewing the poor photographic characteristics of the unslit Secret Service print, I wished, if possible, to gain an understanding about the quality of the print printed by Jamieson Laboratories 22 Nov. 1963.

[from pg 190 - https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n189/mode/2up ]

It would appear as late as 1993 there was an unslit, 16mm first generation copy of the Z-film.

[Michael Welch]

When the Z-film was initially processed it was a 16mm unslit film. Three copies, all 16mm, were made from this original.
As part of his initial 1993 report, Roland Zavada makes the following observation:

Prints of the Zapruder Camera Original

FBI or Secret Service Print: A print, 1 of 3 prints, made of the Zapruder 8mm camera film prior to slitting was reported to have been printed by the Jamieson Film Company. The print was unslit and our very casual examination show’s a significant loss of color image quality, compared to the original, for undetermined causes. (Printer timing or storage??) The group also identified some damage due to handling such as perforation damage and an area of "burn through or melting" possibly due to high intensity light.

After reviewing the poor photographic characteristics of the unslit Secret Service print, I wished, if possible, to gain an understanding about the quality of the print printed by Jamieson Laboratories 22 Nov. 1963.

[from pg 190 - https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n189/mode/2up ]

It would appear as late as 1993 there was an unslit, 16mm first generation copy of the Z-film.

Hi Dan, Yet all of Zapruder's copies were slit to 8mm correct? So is this the Hawkeye Works' copy? Thank you for your helpful input! Sincerely yours, Michael

 

[Dan O'meara]

Hi Dan, Yet all of Zapruder's copies were slit to 8mm correct? So is this the Hawkeye Works' copy? Thank you for your helpful input! Sincerely yours, Michael

What makes you think all the copies were slit?
Zavada makes it clear he is examining one of the 3 copies that was made from the unslit original.

LATER EDIT: Whatever the case, Zavada is examining an unslit, first generation copy of the Z-film. It may well be the case that the damage he notices was caused during the rush job done on the 24th for the second set of briefing boards.
One other point, in "The Zapruder Film Mystery", Horne notes that McMahon and Turner were specifically ordered not to tell anyone about the work they were doing, including their bosses. The mystery as to why Dino was kept out of the loop is answered right there.

[Dan O'meara]

Just getting back to the topic of the thread.
There was a couple of things that bugged me about Witt's HSCA testimony. One was that, contrary to his explanation that he was putting up his umbrella as the limo approached, there are multiple pictures of him with his umbrella in the air way before the limo gets to him. He had an unobstructed view of JFK as he approached and was shot the first time and the head shot. Witt pretends he never saw any of this.
There's something really fishy about it.

I've just remembered the second thing - Witt worked for Rio Grande Life Insurance Company on Field Street, just a few blocks down from Dealey Plaza.
Rio Grande Insurance had it's offices in the Rio Grande building, 251 North Field Street
This building comes up in someone's WC testimony but I couldn't remember who it was and as I was searching for it I came across a thread on the Ed Forum by Steve Thomas dealing specifically with this subject - https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23210-rio-grande-building/

Steve found out the following information:

1) The Rio Grande Building was at 251 N. Field St. Oswald wrote to the INS at 251 N. Field in 1962 about June's citizenship status. She was classified as an "alien" and Lee wanted her status to be changed to a U.S. citizen - The INS had an office at 1402 Rio Grande Building.

2) On April 1, 1964, Miss Brenda Route, Deputy Clerk, Domestic Relations Court, Dallas County, Texas, advised SA James Hosty...that on November 13, 1963, Mrs. Ruth Paine filed a petition for divorce from Michael Paine citing “cruel and tyrannical treatment” that made living together impossible. No action was taken, and after six months the matter was automatically dismissed by notice to the attorney, which in this case would be Raggio and Raggio, 734 Rio Grande Building, Dallas, Texas.

3) The 112th INTC Region II office was at 912 Rio Grande Building - a March 26, 1965 letter from Gordon Shanklin to Lieutenant Colonel Roy Pate of the 112th INTC at Room 912 of the Rio Grande Building referencing two copies of a letterhead memo on the Dallas/Fort Worth Minutemen Club.

4) William Kelly wrote in the Education Forum on Posted March 12, 2014 that the Secret Service had their office in the Rio Grande Building. [this need confirming AFAIC]

Thomas makes the point that after leaving the TSBD Oswald appeared to be heading in the general direction of the Rio Grande Building.
Whatever the case, Witt had some interesting neighbours.

[Dan O'meara]

It's funny that Reed decided to take two random pictures of the bus Oswald was supposed to be on at the time he was supposed to be on it (apparently  )
I wonder what drew his attention to this random bus?
In the background of the top picture is the Rio Grande Building.

[Charles Collins]

It's funny that Reed decided to take two random pictures of the bus Oswald was supposed to be on at the time he was supposed to be on it (apparently  )
I wonder what drew his attention to this random bus?
In the background of the top picture is the Rio Grande Building.

That’s interesting, if that really is THE bus, then LHO would have gotten off sometime around the time that the top photo was taken. And the second photo with the TSBD in the background would have been taken after LHO had left the bus. What is the source of your information regarding these photos. I looked at the photo gallery on this website, but Reed’s photos don’t include these. I do see what appears to be someone standing in or crossing the street near the bus in the first photo. I am pretty sure it is LHO (or maybe a hatless cop).