Another proof the Zapruder film has been faked

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Nice points, B.A. In HOAX (2003), I explain that Erwin Swartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, viewed the film (in what appears to have been its original form) at Eastman Kodak, where it was developed. When Noel Twyman asked him about the limo stop, he was vague and could not recall. But when he asked him about the effects of the fatal shot, Swartz was quite specific and very graphic. He said that he had seen Kennedy's head suddenly "whip around to the left", that he had seen an explosion of blood and brains from the head, and that it had blown out "to the left and rear".

Moreover, Secret Service agents Sam Kinny and Vincent Gullo, Jr., to confirm that Kinny had told him of his discovery of a piece of the right-rear of JFK's skull in the limousine on the flight back to Washington, D.C., and that another member of the detail had become nauseated from observing the blood and gore across the limousine trunk. The completely clean trunk of the limousine as seen in the extant film also indications that this part had to be "tidied up" lest it contradict the government's "official account". Reports from those who have seen "the other film" confirm it. (pp. 27-28)

I find it extremely odd that Thompson would even dare say that claim that no witness in Dealey Plaza showed such a wound......I mean the evidence of what many saw that day is astounding as far as the head wound. It honestly does not take any kind of rocket science to quickly conclude that those "patches" on JFK's head are just that, graphical additions to hide what many know as obvious and what many witnesses saw that day. If you have a grand coverup and official story painted up the wounds must agree, not the other way around. Not to the perps anyway.

I must also say, one thing I have always found odd (or off even lol) is the fact that I have never seen parts of JFK's head on the back of the vehicle at the moment he was shot. I mean the film seems clear enough to show (or indicate) if it were to take place, which it did (he was shot). You would think with the clarity of the film, one would see parts of JFK's head on the back of the vehicle, where Jackie went to pick up parts, etc. You seen nothing at the moment of impact or afterwards, as far as I can see anyway.

[Mark Wengler]

Back in the mid 80's i wrote a letter to Mr McCelland asking him the drawing that shows the wound to the lower back of the head was right he sent reply that it was.

Wish i kept that letter but when i sold my collection around 2000 it went with the collection.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Martin,

Are you joking? These witness reports, including by Clint Hill, confirm that Officer Chaney rode forward to inform Chief Curry BEFORE the limo reached the TUP. If the Zapruder and Nix films were authentic, they should show Officer Chaney ridding forward. But they do not. Therefore, the Zapruder and the Nix films CANNOT BE AUTHENTIC. Since Tink continues to insist that those films ARE authentic, he is IN SOME STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT ALL OF THIS. Now you are telling me that what these witnesses have to say IS CONSISTENT WITH TINK'S POSITION?

"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

"His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

Not only does Clint's description of the wound contradict your characterization, but his account is consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about about Chaney, which refutes the film's authenticity. Tink has repeatedly claimed this happened AFTER the limo had already passed the TUP and that we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, . . ."

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off . . . .”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there . . ."

FWIW I don't think the statements of Jackie, Hill, and Bennett actually contradict what Tink has said.

Edited January 23, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Daniel Gallup]

Nice points, B.A. In HOAX (2003), I explain that Erwin Swartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, viewed the film (in what appears to have been its original form) at Eastman Kodak, where it was developed. When Noel Twyman asked him about the limo stop, he was vague and could not recall. But when he asked him about the effects of the fatal shot, Swartz was quite specific and very graphic. He said that he had seen Kennedy's head suddenly "whip around to the left", that he had seen an explosion of blood and brains from the head, and that it had blown out "to the left and rear".

Moreover, Secret Service agents Sam Kinny and Vincent Gullo, Jr., to confirm that Kinny had told him of his discovery of a piece of the right-rear of JFK's skull in the limousine on the flight back to Washington, D.C., and that another member of the detail had become nauseated from observing the blood and gore across the limousine trunk. The completely clean trunk of the limousine as seen in the extant film also indications that this part had to be "tidied up" lest it contradict the government's "official account". Reports from those who have seen "the other film" confirm it. (pp. 27-28)

I find it extremely odd that Thompson would even dare say that claim that no witness in Dealey Plaza showed such a wound......I mean the evidence of what many saw that day is astounding as far as the head wound. It honestly does not take any kind of rocket science to quickly conclude that those "patches" on JFK's head are just that, graphical additions to hide what many know as obvious and what many witnesses saw that day. If you have a grand coverup and official story painted up the wounds must agree, not the other way around. Not to the perps anyway.

I must also say, one thing I have always found odd (or off even lol) is the fact that I have never seen parts of JFK's head on the back of the vehicle at the moment he was shot. I mean the film seems clear enough to show (or indicate) if it were to take place, which it did (he was shot). You would think with the clarity of the film, one would see parts of JFK's head on the back of the vehicle, where Jackie went to pick up parts, etc. You seen nothing at the moment of impact or afterwards, as far as I can see anyway.

Dr. Fetzer or anyone else: in an earlier post you reproduced Tom Robinson's notes. I have always been puzzled by those who insist Dr. Angel's placement of the Harper fragment to be correct -- if this were true, would not Robinson have reported the absence of bone in the location cited by Dr. Angel? Instead, we have a hole in the back of the head, right were Dr. Cairns first identified the bone. Has this problem been discussed in light of Robinson's notes? Just wondering. Any input appreciated, and thanks in advance. Daniel

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., fills his posts with opinions. Now and then he drops in what he tells us is a fact. Recently, he wrote:

"Tink made it a theme of his thread on "The Law of Unintended Consequences" that the MPI slides are supposed to be the "gold standard" for Zapruder film research, where I have faulted that claim on multiple grounds: The MPI version of the film has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; does not include what ought to be frames 341, 350, and 486; does not include frames 155 and 156; and does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211."

His criticism of “the MPI slides” is both wrong and silly. The MPI video has many problems but the individual transparencies do not. All frames were properly photographed in sequence. As Fetzer points out, Doug Horne was actually present during the process by which the original frames were copied onto 4" by 5" transparencies. Now consider Fetzer’s claimed “facts.” They are really “non-facts,” “factoids.” The transparencies show no reversal of frames 331 and 332. The transparencies include frames 341, 350 and 486. None are missing, nor has the entire set ever been "missing" as Fetzer claimed elsewhere. Since the transparencies are copies of the in-camera original film, there are no transparencies for the socalled “missing frames” (207 - 212) or 155 and 156. It was Horne himself ... not me... who recommended that the MPI transparencies be taken as the “gold standard.” He wrote:

"Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were to be declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than Sydney’s dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way."

What Doug Horne described above has been sitting at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas since 1999 available for inspection. There is no question whatsoever that the MPI transparencies were made directly from the in-camera original. It is indisputably a “first generation copy.” At some point in the future someone may be able to show whether the Wilkinson copy is a “third generation copy” or a “fifth generation copy.” Right now all we have are different people saying different things at different times. However this turns out in the future, the Wilkinson copy is at least two generations downstream from the MPI transparencies and possibly four generations downstream. In Doug Horne’s own words, the MPI transparencies are the “control.”

I’ve said many times that my examination of the transparencies and frame 317 in particular showed no indications whatsoever of the socalled “patch effect.” Instead of looking at the transparencies and seeing whether or not I’m right, Fetzer has started a new tune: “Since the MPI transparencies don’t show the same effect as the Wilkinson copy, the MPI transparencies must have been doctored by persons unknown.” So once again the conspiritorial alteration of the Zapruder film has to spin additional conspiracies to keep itself alive. At least, this seems to be Fetzer’s view. The other alternative is the simple photographic principle that direct copies are to be preferred to secondary copies and that each copying process leads to contrast build-up. Take your choice. Conspiracies piled on conspiracies or contrast buildup piled on contrast buildup.

JT

Another proof the Zapruder film has been faked

The "black patch" on the back of JFK's head

Jim Fetzer

Tink made it a theme of his thread on "The Law of Unintended Consequences" that the MPI slides are supposed to be the "gold standard" for Zapruder film research, where I have faulted that claim on multiple grounds: The MPI version of the film has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; does not include what ought to be frames 341, 350, and 486; does not include frames 155 and 156; and does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. But there are other, more subtle, problems with MPI that have not been addressed here, in particular, because of which the claim that these are "state of the art" reproductions is not remotely defensible. Since many of those who post on the film do not show any signs of having read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I want to share some important passages that were authored by John Costella:

"The MPI saga seemed to me to be a bizarre one--but in time I realized that it fit neatly into the pattern of supposed incompetence with which the entire assassination has been whitewashed, by those ascribing to the U.S. government's official view of the crime.

"The first problem was that MPI had ostensibly been somewhat at a loss in preparing their material for video reproduction. Images had obviously been resized and reframed a number of times resulting in a loss of clarity. And, in the end, the images were produced with the wrong dimensions: images of complete frames were overstretched, horizontally, compared to the real frames; highly zoomed images of JFK, in contrast, were compressed horizontally.

"The second problem was the MPI had, somehow, completely omitted three frames of the film (including the very last frame), resulting in incorrect numbers being allocated to the last 143 frames being shown, including two frames that were also interchanged in two of the sequences, but not in the others.

"The resulting DVD was, perhaps, of suitable quality for an average home video collection. I was flabbergasted to discover that it was also intended to be the final "reference" digitization for assassination researchers of the camera-original Zapruder film, because the latter was sealed and locked away in the National Archives. Apart from a small region surrounding JFK in a number of frames (shown in a highly zoomed sequence on the DVD), the resolution of each image was inferior to that published in Life magazine just two weeks after the assassination, as well as that already available from other sources." (HOAX, pp. 147-148)

Notice that the resolution of the individual frames is INFERIOR to those published in LIFE just two weeks after the assassination. We have already been told by Josiah that the "black patch" so conspicuous in frame 317 on other versions of the film, including the 3rd generation copy obtained by Sydney Wilkinson from the NARA, is not on the MPI slides, which by itself is extremely suspicious. Tink has told us that "downstream copies" display "contrast build up" and that this is supposed to explain the "black patch" at the back of JFK's head. But since John Connally is also in the same frames of the same generations of these films, why is there no "contrast build up" on the back of his head? And that is not the only suspicious problem with the MPI slides that Tink continues to tout. There is more.

Doug Horne personally witnessed the true original MPI slides photographed from the extant film in the Archives. It took over three days of effort to accomplish. Each frame, and portions of the preceding frame and following frame, were photographed on a 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome color positive transparency. Horne was the ARRB's representative at this event and was a neutral observer at the time, because he had not yet done research on the authenticity of the film. Silverberg also had a junior attorney there representing LMH Co. interests, where McCrone Associates was the Chicago company that did the work. The images went from the "camera original" to large transparencies and were then scanned digitally, which puts their RAW SCANS already one or two steps away from the "camera original".

The more serious question is why the black patch should be absent from the current MPI frames, when it is not only visible on the 3rd generation copy obtained from the Archives but is also present in the MPI re-created motion picture film that was produced by MPI and marketed to the public in 1998! This 1998 video shows the black patch -- not completely clearly, but it is definitely there -- in frame 317. Since Tink says it is not present on the MPI slide at The 6th Floor Museum, as I have asked before, just what could this portend other than ever more alteration? If other observers confirm that the black patch is no longer present (now) on the MPI slide of frame 317, then how can this be explained when IT IS PRESENT ON THE MPI MOTION PICTURE SOLD IN 1998, especially in the close-up version?

[Craig Lamson]

Here is what the archives has to say about getting copies of the film....

If you obtain permission you'd be getting a negative made from the 35mm Interpositive blow-up (this will result in a 3rd generation negative for you). We do not allow access to the camera original or the 35mm blow up preservation internegative. You would have access to the 35mm intermediate interpositive or a 35mm internegative, but the internegative is yet another generation away from the original.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Patrick Block]

Here is what NARA itself has actually declared about Ms. Wilkinson's copy of the film that she received from them.

Below is a part of one of Ms. Wilkinson's private emails to me, where she shares her dupe neg element's genealogy which was sent direct to her from NARA early this past year.

---In Feb., 2011, Daniel Rooney, Supervisory Archivist at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland informed me in an email that

the lineage of our 35mm dupe neg. is:

Zapruder Camera Original 8mm - NARA 35mm Interneg - NARA 35mm Interpos - Our Dupe Neg

Consequently, he stated, "Your film negative can be said to be 3rd generation from the original."

I find Mr. Thompson's proposal of two hits to the head perfectly viable. I agree with him completely, as I stated in my very first posts, that there is no sign of a rearward exit wound at frames #313-314.

The artwork- the "blacking out" of the rear of the President's head begins at precisely frame #315 and not before. The easiest way to come to grips with the existance of the artwork is to take any really decent copy of the film, and view frames of Kennedy and the whole car before frame #315 and view the frames from #315 onward. The artwork is immediately apparent.

In my earlier post which Mr. Thompson did not respond to, I explained clearly the likely reason the conspirator's altering the film "blacked in" the exist wound but left in the violent head snap backwards. (It's quite possible my post got buried in the huge morass of arguments, and he never read it.)

The black patch artwork could be accomplished with relatively simple work. Removing the head snap could not be done in a short period of time with a more minimal staff and equipment.

It's a matter of "what could be accomplished" in the window in which the conspirators had to work.

I still think everyone on both sides should take a breath and stop with the name calling and attacks. Both sides are guilty of it. It only causes dissension, when in fact, people who are interested in the truth ought to be looking at their common ground.

Mr. Thompson, could I hear the rest of your opinion on the nature of the shots? Are you thinking a head shot from the front and rear? Or two from the front?

[Craig Lamson]

The artwork- the "blacking out" of the rear of the President's head begins at precisely frame #315 and not before. The easiest way to come to grips with the existance of the artwork is to take any really decent copy of the film, and view frames of Kennedy and the whole car before frame #315 and view the frames from #315 onward. The artwork is immediately apparent.

"I see it, just believe me..."

[Josiah Thompson]

Front and rear, Mr. Block.

I take it that it is your proposal that the alterationist cospiritors didn't have enough time to really cover things up so they patched over the head but left the big old left-backward snap intact. This, of course, would be the dumbest of all possible choices at that time. Leave in the left backward snap which leads people to look with great attention to the back of JFK's head where they will find a humonguous patch. Sort of like putting a neon arrow there saying, "Look what I faked up!"

More to the point, the smartest thing to do would have been simply to seize the film... not do a half-ass job of altering it. Seizing leaves all your options open to be adjusted as events shape the future. Why not do that? Isn't that the smartest course and doing a quickie, half-assed job the dumbest choice?

You say "any decent copy of the film" shows the artwork you focus on. That's false. The MPI transparencies show nothing like that. Go take a look yourself if you don't believe me. The David Lifton's copy of frame 317 doesn't show it. My own copy of 317 or other frames don't show. "Decent copies" of the film show the exact opposite of what you claim they show. But then this has only been pointed out about five times in the past.

JT

Here is what NARA itself has actually declared about Ms. Wilkinson's copy of the film that she received from them.

Below is a part of one of Ms. Wilkinson's private emails to me, where she shares her dupe neg element's genealogy which was sent direct to her from NARA early this past year.

---In Feb., 2011, Daniel Rooney, Supervisory Archivist at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland informed me in an email that

the lineage of our 35mm dupe neg. is:

Zapruder Camera Original 8mm - NARA 35mm Interneg - NARA 35mm Interpos - Our Dupe Neg

Consequently, he stated, "Your film negative can be said to be 3rd generation from the original."

I find Mr. Thompson's proposal of two hits to the head perfectly viable. I agree with him completely, as I stated in my very first posts, that there is no sign of a rearward exit wound at frames #313-314.

The artwork- the "blacking out" of the rear of the President's head begins at precisely frame #315 and not before. The easiest way to come to grips with the existance of the artwork is to take any really decent copy of the film, and view frames of Kennedy and the whole car before frame #315 and view the frames from #315 onward. The artwork is immediately apparent.

In my earlier post which Mr. Thompson did not respond to, I explained clearly the likely reason the conspirator's altering the film "blacked in" the exist wound but left in the violent head snap backwards. (It's quite possible my post got buried in the huge morass of arguments, and he never read it.)

The black patch artwork could be accomplished with relatively simple work. Removing the head snap could not be done in a short period of time with a more minimal staff and equipment.

It's a matter of "what could be accomplished" in the window in which the conspirators had to work.

I still think everyone on both sides should take a breath and stop with the name calling and attacks. Both sides are guilty of it. It only causes dissension, when in fact, people who are interested in the truth ought to be looking at their common ground.

Mr. Thompson, could I hear the rest of your opinion on the nature of the shots? Are you thinking a head shot from the front and rear? Or two from the front?

[Patrick Block]

Mr, Thompson, here is my complete post from the older thread, which touches on all the issues you bring up here. Basically, once any officials who were not a part of the conspiracy knew of the existence of the film, those involved in the assassination could hardly destroy it- and the way the film was treated did remove it from the view of the American public for decades.

A head shot from behind and another from the front is the likely scenario deduced from Dr. Mantik's work. There is a fair amount of evidence that suggests this may have been what occured.

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

That's a perfectly logical question, and I'll take a shot at it.

The Conspiracy was carefully planned and polished by professionals- that mysterious intelligence agency you describe- it was the CIA. They had already accounted for or stopped any real investigation of the crime by insuring that the search would stop with Oswald, by creating the "Oswald visit's the Soviet Chief Assassin" scenario in Mexico City. Everyone would be head over-heels in their enthusiasm to blame Oswald alone to avoid a conflict of massive proportions with the Soviets.

With their man already pre-planned and waiting in the wings to lead the WC to the "correct" conclusion, those that planned the coup knew only the most shallow of purely political "investigations" would take place.

They made sure that they got full control over the film, by having a company "friendly" to them (Life Magazine, headed by former psyops and propaganda guru C. D. Jackson) purchase it, and insuring that the film would never be shown publicly as a motion picture by this huge news giant- ever.

Haven't you ever found it curious that Life Magazine paid all this additional money (100,000.00 of additional cash), and never even bothered to try and recoup it's additional investment with a documentary or news program?

Why purchase the motion picture rights for an additional 100k $ if they weren't going to publish it? Does anyone believe the fairy tale that they were saving the country from the horror of publishing the images? I mean...really?

Look at the publishing history of frame #317. How many times have decent color images of it popped up, in the early decades after the assassination?

Why is it missing? It's among the clearest images of Jackie and the rest after the head shot.

Those dealing with the film would have had to deal with honest law enforcement /intelligence/Secret Service agents not involved in the plot. What if Forrest Sorrels was not a part of the plot? Under these conditions, could they just destroy the film?

Once outsiders knew the film existed, it couldn't very well be destroyed altogether. All it would take is one honest individual's interest in the film's existence to keep it from being destroyed.

In my opinion, as someone who has worked with both super8 and 16mm film- these "blacked out" back of head frames suggest a shortage of time to do much work on the film. They most likely used self-matting aerial imaging to accomplish their work with the film, rather than more complex and multi-step matte work.

This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.

It suggests to me the conspirators were on a very tight schedule.

I know Mr. Fetzer and others have theories that a lot more advanced, traveling matte work was done with the film. I am personally not convinced of this. I'm not inclined to argue against it...but in my opinion aerial imaging is a more likely solution that answers your astute questions about the obvious artwork on the back of JFK's head.

I've carefully read Doug Horne's information about the film's trek to Rochester, and his work tends to confirm my opinion that the more likely scenario is one hectic day of frantic work to make the film merely passable for the consumption of an expressed few who might have the "honor" of watching it. After all, Mr. Thompson, this was a film that was heavily suppressed from the public- and yet it is a part of American History, and it's hard to argue that this basic evidence doesn't belong to every American citizen.

Perhaps a few frames of the film were dropped completely to get rid of obvious evidence of clear strikes. That would be a matter of making invisible optical cuts of individual frames when the new movie was assembled using an optical printer- difficult, but an editing matter a good technician could overcome without a spate of animators. Maybe a cut to eliminate the turn and a visible street hit. It would also be possible, without too much time, to blur a couple of damning frames.

These are the kinds of alterations that harried conspirators could make on the fly rather quickly.

It's also quite possible that those altering the Zapruder film could also have pulled off adding the perceived "blob" to the film via aerial imaging. The process allows for opaque artwork to be added "on top" on an existing image...and this area of the film is quite alarmingly inconsistent from frame to frame, as if it were painted-in art on top of the real film. This would have been done on animation cels using an animation stand, installed as part of an optical printer modified for aerial imaging work.

They would need talent to accomplish this though, of the sort you associate with Hollywood.

If the "blob" is artwork, suddenly most everything Mr. Lifton has theorized for all these years rather logically and neatly works.

I am not 100% sold on the blob being artwork, but it is really the only viable alternative to logically solve the issues with the huge mass of witnesses who saw only the rearward wound- in my opinion, of course.

On the matter of the headsnap.

How would someone remove this using aerial imaging? You couldn't. You can't just drop out the frames....the car would jump down the road. Removing the headsnap required more time and resources than these conspirators had to work with. They just couldn't pull it off, and had to move ahead with a less than perfect film. That is why it remains.

There are limitations to what could be accomplished with the technology available in 1963- especially under the time considerations involved here.

They knew that Life Magazine was compromised at the top and in the service of their organization, so that a clear copy of the film wouldn't fall into public hands in their lifetimes- and it didn't.

"So what, if the truth came out in fifty years?", they might have thought.

I understand your initial concerns, Mr. Thompson, and I think this quite specifically and logically addresses all of your well thought out questions.

Now, we will eventually be able to look at the very best available possible copy of the film, outside of traveling to NARA ourselves, thanks to the patriotic and motivated Ms. Wilkinson and her willingness to shell out the cash for research purposes. (Unless someone nefarious and treasonous stops her before she does so.)

I wish her Godspeed in her work.

[David G. Healy]

The artwork- the "blacking out" of the rear of the President's head begins at precisely frame #315 and not before. The easiest way to come to grips with the existance of the artwork is to take any really decent copy of the film, and view frames of Kennedy and the whole car before frame #315 and view the frames from #315 onward. The artwork is immediately apparent.

"I see it, just believe me..."

NOW you sound like the Warren Commission and LBJ, "believe it..." so gird'em up Lucy, the Z-film alteration camp has woken the nutters up, AGAIN! Don't bury your collective, LHO-lone nut head in the sand! So what else is new.... glad to see Mr. Block isn't falling for the attacks on him... its not the messenger Craig, Dr. Thompson, you have access to the same 35mm film as the Hollywood group, what's the matter?

[William Kelly]

If the American taxpayers spent millions of dollars for the Zapruder film, why aren't the best available transparancies currently controlled by the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas posted on line so everyone and anyone can view them?

Why do you have to go to the Sixth Floor and request to review them privately when it would be to everyone's advantage for them to be made publicly available over the internet?

The Sixth Floor Oral History tapes and transcripts should also be made available on line as well.

And until they are made available they should not be given any more research materials that others may have.

Bill Kelly

JFKcountercoup

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Daniel,

Thomas Evan Robinson and Ed Reed were both present when Humes took a cranial saw to JFK's head and enlarged it from (what I call) "the heel" blow-out seen at Parkland to the "footprint" described by the autopsy report. The Harper fragment was part of what was missing, so he was not in the position to describe it. His interview with the ARRB led to the revelation that Humes had performed this stunning feat. Since he had seen the back of the head wound BEFORE Humes enlarged it as well as AFTER, he was able to describe how it looked when the body came in. ("Oh, the doctors did that!", he explained, when he was asked about the dotted line on the diagram of the skull.) Because he was the mortician who prepared the body for burial, he had the most time to observe the wounds on the body. I therefore believe that any theory of the case inconsistent with his descriptions of the wounds should be regarded as indefensible. JFK may have had other wounds, such as the damage that was done to his throat -- where the small, clean puncture wound was massively enlarged to make it look more like a wound of exit -- but what he says about the other wounds, where he even filled those "shrapnel wounds" with wax, should properly be regarded as carrying special weight. He had far more time to study the wounds than did any other witness. On the proper placement of the Harper fragment, see David W. Mantik's essay on the medical evidence in MURDER (2000).

Jin

Nice points, B.A. In HOAX (2003), I explain that Erwin Swartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, viewed the film (in what appears to have been its original form) at Eastman Kodak, where it was developed. When Noel Twyman asked him about the limo stop, he was vague and could not recall. But when he asked him about the effects of the fatal shot, Swartz was quite specific and very graphic. He said that he had seen Kennedy's head suddenly "whip around to the left", that he had seen an explosion of blood and brains from the head, and that it had blown out "to the left and rear".

Moreover, Secret Service agents Sam Kinny and Vincent Gullo, Jr., to confirm that Kinny had told him of his discovery of a piece of the right-rear of JFK's skull in the limousine on the flight back to Washington, D.C., and that another member of the detail had become nauseated from observing the blood and gore across the limousine trunk. The completely clean trunk of the limousine as seen in the extant film also indications that this part had to be "tidied up" lest it contradict the government's "official account". Reports from those who have seen "the other film" confirm it. (pp. 27-28)

I find it extremely odd that Thompson would even dare say that claim that no witness in Dealey Plaza showed such a wound......I mean the evidence of what many saw that day is astounding as far as the head wound. It honestly does not take any kind of rocket science to quickly conclude that those "patches" on JFK's head are just that, graphical additions to hide what many know as obvious and what many witnesses saw that day. If you have a grand coverup and official story painted up the wounds must agree, not the other way around. Not to the perps anyway.

I must also say, one thing I have always found odd (or off even lol) is the fact that I have never seen parts of JFK's head on the back of the vehicle at the moment he was shot. I mean the film seems clear enough to show (or indicate) if it were to take place, which it did (he was shot). You would think with the clarity of the film, one would see parts of JFK's head on the back of the vehicle, where Jackie went to pick up parts, etc. You seen nothing at the moment of impact or afterwards, as far as I can see anyway.

Dr. Fetzer or anyone else: in an earlier post you reproduced Tom Robinson's notes. I have always been puzzled by those who insist Dr. Angel's placement of the Harper fragment to be correct -- if this were true, would not Robinson have reported the absence of bone in the location cited by Dr. Angel? Instead, we have a hole in the back of the head, right were Dr. Cairns first identified the bone. Has this problem been discussed in light of Robinson's notes? Just wondering. Any input appreciated, and thanks in advance. Daniel

Edited January 24, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Does Josiah Thompson have any doubt that Doug Horne no longer regards the MPI slide set as "the gold standard"? Surely, no one who has been following this (short) thread or the other (much longer) thread could possibly continue to maintain such a delusion. The "pristine" character of the slide set has now taken an irrevocable hit. And if the "black patch" is indeed no longer there -- even though it is present on Sydney's 3rd generation print and is also present on the MPI movie released in 1998 -- the reputation of The 6th Floor Museum will have been permanently and irretrievably damaged. Actually, I think that we are already there. And your reputation is going down the drain with it. It's simply a matter of logic and evidence. And there's more to come.

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., fills his posts with opinions. Now and then he drops in what he tells us is a fact. Recently, he wrote:

"Tink made it a theme of his thread on "The Law of Unintended Consequences" that the MPI slides are supposed to be the "gold standard" for Zapruder film research, where I have faulted that claim on multiple grounds: The MPI version of the film has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; does not include what ought to be frames 341, 350, and 486; does not include frames 155 and 156; and does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211."

His criticism of “the MPI slides” is both wrong and silly. The MPI video has many problems but the individual transparencies do not. All frames were properly photographed in sequence. As Fetzer points out, Doug Horne was actually present during the process by which the original frames were copied onto 4" by 5" transparencies. Now consider Fetzer’s claimed “facts.” They are really “non-facts,” “factoids.” The transparencies show no reversal of frames 331 and 332. The transparencies include frames 341, 350 and 486. None are missing, nor has the entire set ever been "missing" as Fetzer claimed elsewhere. Since the transparencies are copies of the in-camera original film, there are no transparencies for the socalled “missing frames” (207 - 212) or 155 and 156. It was Horne himself ... not me... who recommended that the MPI transparencies be taken as the “gold standard.” He wrote:

"Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were to be declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than Sydney’s dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way."

What Doug Horne described above has been sitting at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas since 1999 available for inspection. There is no question whatsoever that the MPI transparencies were made directly from the in-camera original. It is indisputably a “first generation copy.” At some point in the future someone may be able to show whether the Wilkinson copy is a “third generation copy” or a “fifth generation copy.” Right now all we have are different people saying different things at different times. However this turns out in the future, the Wilkinson copy is at least two generations downstream from the MPI transparencies and possibly four generations downstream. In Doug Horne’s own words, the MPI transparencies are the “control.”

I’ve said many times that my examination of the transparencies and frame 317 in particular showed no indications whatsoever of the socalled “patch effect.” Instead of looking at the transparencies and seeing whether or not I’m right, Fetzer has started a new tune: “Since the MPI transparencies don’t show the same effect as the Wilkinson copy, the MPI transparencies must have been doctored by persons unknown.” So once again the conspiritorial alteration of the Zapruder film has to spin additional conspiracies to keep itself alive. At least, this seems to be Fetzer’s view. The other alternative is the simple photographic principle that direct copies are to be preferred to secondary copies and that each copying process leads to contrast build-up. Take your choice. Conspiracies piled on conspiracies or contrast buildup piled on contrast buildup.

JT

Another proof the Zapruder film has been faked

The "black patch" on the back of JFK's head

Jim Fetzer

Tink made it a theme of his thread on "The Law of Unintended Consequences" that the MPI slides are supposed to be the "gold standard" for Zapruder film research, where I have faulted that claim on multiple grounds: The MPI version of the film has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; does not include what ought to be frames 341, 350, and 486; does not include frames 155 and 156; and does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. But there are other, more subtle, problems with MPI that have not been addressed here, in particular, because of which the claim that these are "state of the art" reproductions is not remotely defensible. Since many of those who post on the film do not show any signs of having read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I want to share some important passages that were authored by John Costella:

"The MPI saga seemed to me to be a bizarre one--but in time I realized that it fit neatly into the pattern of supposed incompetence with which the entire assassination has been whitewashed, by those ascribing to the U.S. government's official view of the crime.

"The first problem was that MPI had ostensibly been somewhat at a loss in preparing their material for video reproduction. Images had obviously been resized and reframed a number of times resulting in a loss of clarity. And, in the end, the images were produced with the wrong dimensions: images of complete frames were overstretched, horizontally, compared to the real frames; highly zoomed images of JFK, in contrast, were compressed horizontally.

"The second problem was the MPI had, somehow, completely omitted three frames of the film (including the very last frame), resulting in incorrect numbers being allocated to the last 143 frames being shown, including two frames that were also interchanged in two of the sequences, but not in the others.

"The resulting DVD was, perhaps, of suitable quality for an average home video collection. I was flabbergasted to discover that it was also intended to be the final "reference" digitization for assassination researchers of the camera-original Zapruder film, because the latter was sealed and locked away in the National Archives. Apart from a small region surrounding JFK in a number of frames (shown in a highly zoomed sequence on the DVD), the resolution of each image was inferior to that published in Life magazine just two weeks after the assassination, as well as that already available from other sources." (HOAX, pp. 147-148)

Notice that the resolution of the individual frames is INFERIOR to those published in LIFE just two weeks after the assassination. We have already been told by Josiah that the "black patch" so conspicuous in frame 317 on other versions of the film, including the 3rd generation copy obtained by Sydney Wilkinson from the NARA, is not on the MPI slides, which by itself is extremely suspicious. Tink has told us that "downstream copies" display "contrast build up" and that this is supposed to explain the "black patch" at the back of JFK's head. But since John Connally is also in the same frames of the same generations of these films, why is there no "contrast build up" on the back of his head? And that is not the only suspicious problem with the MPI slides that Tink continues to tout. There is more.

Doug Horne personally witnessed the true original MPI slides photographed from the extant film in the Archives. It took over three days of effort to accomplish. Each frame, and portions of the preceding frame and following frame, were photographed on a 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome color positive transparency. Horne was the ARRB's representative at this event and was a neutral observer at the time, because he had not yet done research on the authenticity of the film. Silverberg also had a junior attorney there representing LMH Co. interests, where McCrone Associates was the Chicago company that did the work. The images went from the "camera original" to large transparencies and were then scanned digitally, which puts their RAW SCANS already one or two steps away from the "camera original".

The more serious question is why the black patch should be absent from the current MPI frames, when it is not only visible on the 3rd generation copy obtained from the Archives but is also present in the MPI re-created motion picture film that was produced by MPI and marketed to the public in 1998! This 1998 video shows the black patch -- not completely clearly, but it is definitely there -- in frame 317. Since Tink says it is not present on the MPI slide at The 6th Floor Museum, as I have asked before, just what could this portend other than ever more alteration? If other observers confirm that the black patch is no longer present (now) on the MPI slide of frame 317, then how can this be explained when IT IS PRESENT ON THE MPI MOTION PICTURE SOLD IN 1998, especially in the close-up version?

Edited January 24, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Calli Robertson]

Prof. Fetzer, a couple of questions if you please :

1. As Chaney 'motoring forwards' no doubt happened before the limo reached the triple underpass, according to yourself, then surely an abundance of witnesses, if not each and everyone who were in the Plaza watching the motorcade, should be able to testify to this as fact, wouldn't you agree? If so, i'd appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of any witnesses, EXCLUDING the lead car occupants, who have made any statements, or suchlike, regarding a motorcycle pulling ahead of the limo whilst still in Dealey Plaza?

2. Would you, or any film 'experts' of your choice, like to have a crack at explaining the process of how Chaney passing the limo before the triple underpass was removed from the Z- film, besides obvious frame excision? I've watched the Duluth symposium, and read enough of your other work on this subject, but alas, i'm still no wiser as to how this could be done to the Zapruder film, without being detected by the technology we have today. Do also bear in mind, that this would also necessitate his removal from the films of Paschall, Nix, Muchmore, and especially Mark Bell's film. This question has been avoided like the plague. (I suspect the reason being that, the more technically minded souls here, who understand what level of work would have to be done to alter ALL of these films inside the 'weekend' timeframe you've alloted, know it is impossible for Chaney to have been removed from these films.....ghost images in Zapruder or not). Thoughts?

3. Would same like to offer an opinion on how Chaney's removal was undertaken in regards to the Daniels film of the limo exiting the triple underpass? A film which, surprisingly, was overlooked in the first round up of evidence and, a film that was only brought to light in the dying days of the HSCA hearings, in late '79, four years after Groden's Goodnight America broadcast of the Z-film. Yet another issue that's been dismissed with no explanation, for the same reason above, no doubt.

4. Would same like to offer an opinion on how Chaney's removal was undertaken in regards to Mel McIntyres photo of the three 'lead' cycles, JFK's limo, Curry's lead car, halfback, all pictured after they have passed the triple underpass? Again, do bear in mind that the photo in question was never out of McIntyre's possession until published in the Dallas Times Herald as part of the twentieth anniversary, in 1983. Upon recently checking Robin Unger's '...Chaney' thread in here from last year, I had noticed the continuing failure to address this point, a satisfactory explanation for which is, in my view, still conspicuous by it's abscence over a year and a half later, despite yourself and Jack's less than feeble attempts to ignore, or fob off, Jerry Logan, and more recently, Josiah Thompson, and I suspect soon, myself, on this one.

(Unless, of course, one of the motorcycles pictured in the background of McIntyre, still in the shadow of the triple underpass, just so happens to be Chaney, and the underpass that the lead car occupants, et al, refer to when mentioning the catch-up and relaying of information, is actually the Stemmons underpass, rather than the triple underpass..... Couldn't be that, could it? Would that be too simple, or too sensible, taking the above into consideration?

Also, for what it is worth, consider these statements:

..that Curry told a researcher that he spoke with Chaney at, or on, the Stemmons freeway access ramp. He also reiterated this story for Gary Mack, in 1979.

E. V. (Earle) Brown, DPD officer stationed atop the Stemmons railroad overrpass, told Earl Golz, March 1980, that four cars came to a stop on the access ramp to Stemmons.

DPD motorcycle officer Jackson stated that he, and Chaney, only caught up with the lead cars at the Stemmons ramp area, again, more than thirty seconds later.

DPD motorcycle officer Courson stated that he, too, was able to catch up with the lead cars at, or on, the Stemmons ramp. Courson was roughly two-hundred feet behind McLain, who was himself, over one-hundred and thirty feet, behind JFK's limo at the time of the shots.

Opinions, thoughts and insults welcomed,

Thanks in advance,

C. A. Robertson.

P.S. Here's two of my favourites : see if you can guess who wrote this in one of their kids' school notebook the same night......

....We traveled west on Main then turned north on Houston Street without too much trouble with the crowd then we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President's car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look [sic] right at me I could see a shocked expression on his face and I thought "Someone is shooting at them." I began stopping my motor and looking straight ahead first at the Railroad overpass and saw only one Policeman standing on the track directly over the street. I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head, he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me. Mrs. Kennedy pulled him toward her. Mrs. Connally pulled Mr. Connally down and she slid down into the seat. I knew that the shooting was coming from my right rear and I looked back that way but I never did look up. Looking back to the front again I saw the Secret Service Agent lying down across the car over Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy, the presidential limousine was beginning to pick up speed and the Secret Service men were running past the presidential car drawing their guns as they ran. I said to Jim Chaney "Let's go with them" and we sped away, he pulled past the President's car and up toward Chief Curry's car. Chief Curry came on the radio and notified the Dispatcher that a shooting had occurred, that we were in route [sic] to Parkland Code three and to notify them to stand by. As we were traveling north on Stemmons Freeway Agent Hill raised up looked toward me and shook his head from side to side and held up his hand thumb down. He knew at that time as I did that the President of the United States was dead or dying.....

....I got off my motor, stepped over to the presidential Limousine. An Agent opened the car door and started to get Mrs. Kennedy out but Mrs. Kennedy said no. It's no need she said and raised up from over Mr. Kennedy. I could see the top of his head was gone.

Douglas Jackson, riding next to Chaney "...he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me... " from Gary Savage, JFK First Day Evidence, p. 363.