Prayer Man

Ed.Ledoux wrote:

barto wrote:

Ed.Ledoux wrote:

He is holding a bottle.

greg_parker wrote:

barto wrote:

Ed.Ledoux wrote:

 And let me just underline that nothing was done here except cropping? Correct?

Ed.Ledoux wrote:

greg_parker wrote:

barto wrote:

Ed.Ledoux wrote:

 And let me just underline that nothing was done here except cropping? Correct?

I split the right side from the left along an artifact line running top to bottom.
I slid the right side up slightly to where the face shadows, chin etc are aligned.

greg_parker wrote:

Roger Odisio wrote:Have you seen this, posted today by Greg Doudna at the Ed Forum?

"So that is a theory of the case in which Oswald as Prayer Man is not only correct but could become possibly more comprehensible.
But now I have a question (and please forgive if this has already been answered elsewhere): according to the Sixth Floor Museum, statement from Gary Mack of March 25, 2015 via Darrell Hastings, there is a first-generation copy of the Darnell film in their custody. I understand you believe better-quality information could be obtained from that film than presently accessible. Yet for some reason there is no access for research purposes to that film, citing "copyright". I see this from Gary Mack:
"NBC took the original Wiegman and Darnell films from the Dallas NBC affiliate to New York following the assassination weekend. Whether the network still has the original Darnell film is unknown, but as a former employee I know the affiliate does not have it or a copy. Nor does Jimmy Darnell.
"Fortunately, a first-generation 16mm copy print was made in Dallas over that weekend and it is in the Museum's collection; however, the Museum cannot do anything with it until copyright issues are resolved. It'll happen, and sooner rather than later." (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/page/109/)
 
When I see this, I think, whoooah! What is going on?
Obviously, for starters, "sooner rather than later" has turned out, now in 2021 six years later, unfulfilled.
All I can say is: it is just customary and basic protocol in fields of scholarship working on primary materials or archaeological artifacts, that qualified researchers are to be allowed access, by permission. That is just normal and supported by professional ethics statements of scholarly societies.
So my question is very simple, in two parts: (a) who owns the copyright on that film? and (b) has a qualified researcher sought formal permission from the copyright owner (not the Sixth Floor Museum or Gary Mack), and been formally refused, directly by the copyright owner? 
I see reference to an ROKC petition, etc. but that is not quite an answer directly to the "a" and "b" of my question. 
If this has not been done, I have a modest suggestion: have a legal firm research and identify and establish who is the legal copyright owner, and write a letter on behalf of you (Andrej Stancak) to that legal copyright owner, asking for the access you need, for research purposes. Get an answer. 
If the answer is "no", publicize it to high heaven. I have been through this whole issue of lack of access to valuable research materials, with the Dead Sea Scrolls. I was filmed on a Nova television program in the fall of 1991 as the first student in the world to view heretofore-inaccessible microfilms of the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls which had just been publicly released by the Huntington Library in California to the world. The action of the Huntington Library broke the access issue in that case.
But back to the Darnell film sitting in the Sixth Floor Museum. Maybe the answer--if the copyright owner is NBC, if the copyright owner, NBC, was asked--might be yes.
Could this access issue with the Darnell film be as simple as: a request to the copyright owner has not yet been made?
Is it possible it would be as simple to get access as that?"

Who has the copyright?  NBC?  Has the museum been asked whether they have cleared up the copyright question posed by Gary Mack six years ago so as to allow access to their copy?

Apparently Doudna has seen your letter to NBC, Greg.  Did they refuse you or simply ignore the  letter?  Perhaps it's time to consider Doudna's suggestion to have a law firm write to NBC (if they have the copyright) on your behalf, or for Andrej Stancak, or a list of researchers.  As Doudna says, to get an answer this time.  There are a number of JFK researchers who are lawyers. 

Roger, whatever you can think of to do, could be helpful. But chances are, it has already been tried.

I started the petition.  Got very few sigs.

I wrote to NBC. They ignored.

I tried to get the National Archives to acquire the films under the JFK Act. They claimed they don't have the power to do that - yet I know for a fact they acquired paper documents themselves from a Secret Service agent after being tipped off that he had them.

I believe it was Bart and Ed who contacted the relevant dept of NBC via email to negotiate obtaining the films. After initially seeming to get somewhere, it was stopped by higher-ups. They were offered only crappy multi-generational versions. 

I think it was Ed and Bart who also tried to get Stone's production company to obtain it for us. That got very short shrift.

Finally, this year, I spoke to a producer for a small production company here in Australia about doing an episode on JFK for a series they produce here on historical and current cold cases and mysteries.  This was arranged through contacts Mick has in the industry. They were interested and the producer said if they went ahead, they culd try and obtain the films. They eventually decided however that they were too small and under-resourced to tackle a huge case like this.

To obtain those films, we need the might of the media on our side. To get the media on our side, we need a fucking ceebrity to jump on board. Do you know any? Because the media is not interested in how good the information is you have to present. They want personalities to bring in the viewers for advertizing dollars. If you are not a known name, then you better at least be a fucking tin-foil hatted lunatic - because they willl also draw an audience.

If I sound angry and frustrated about the situation, that is only because I am.

Roger Odisio wrote:Greg,

There is no question that the ARRB reserved for itself the right to "request additional records *when necessary* for identifying, evaluating, or interpreting records" already in the process.  The ARRB closed in Sept 1998.  The records were passed to the National Archives at that time.  The whole point of the record collection in the first place was "provide the public with the opportunity to judge for themselves the surrounding history of the event". 

You think the responsibility to keep the records up to date as new things were learned didn't pass to the Archives along with the records?   Yeah, they're lying.  Your example helps prove that point.

On Sept.23 I sent two emails to the Archives, the second of which asked them specifically what mechanism they have in place to keep the records up to date, using Darnell as an example.  They sent me a form letter response saying:  "We will assign your request to a staff member who will contact you with a more substantive response".
Nothing further. Several times I called the JFK Collection number they posted and got a busy signal each time!?!


How did you get through to them to get an answer?

barto wrote:

Roger Odisio wrote:Greg,

There is no question that the ARRB reserved for itself the right to "request additional records *when necessary* for identifying, evaluating, or interpreting records" already in the process.  The ARRB closed in Sept 1998.  The records were passed to the National Archives at that time.  The whole point of the record collection in the first place was "provide the public with the opportunity to judge for themselves the surrounding history of the event". 

You think the responsibility to keep the records up to date as new things were learned didn't pass to the Archives along with the records?   Yeah, they're lying.  Your example helps prove that point.

On Sept.23 I sent two emails to the Archives, the second of which asked them specifically what mechanism they have in place to keep the records up to date, using Darnell as an example.  They sent me a form letter response saying:  "We will assign your request to a staff member who will contact you with a more substantive response".
Nothing further. Several times I called the JFK Collection number they posted and got a busy signal each time!?!


How did you get through to them to get an answer?

Ed.Ledoux wrote:NBC can not see irony.
Heres to Morley and Simpich having great success against Brandon and Co.
Cheers!

Vinny wrote:Now if only they will release the films.