DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I suppose if no one knew much about the assassination, they might be taken in by drivel like this, which uses a fake photo to obfuscate a genuine image. Compare the hair in the HSCA diagrams and photographs and it is apparent that the Groden color photos are fake. Compare the misrepresentation of MacRae with the actual witnesses to the wound and the dimensions of this deception begin to become apparent. It is inconceivable that anyone who is serious about the study of the medical evidence would attempt to perpetrate such a gross misrepresentation, especially when the Parkland physicians provided consistent reports as well as several diagrams, including a new sketch by Charles Crenshaw, Figure 17 and, even better, of Figure 18, both of which are elongated, of Vol. I of INSIDE THE ARRB, which closely corresponds to frames 371-375, as Doug Horne pointed out to me after viewing Robin's gif. Duncan MacRae is far, far off base.

Now anyone who claims to be unable to see the defect at the back of the head will be hard pressed to justify any such denial.

The light greyish looking area being hit by sunlight on Kennedy's leftward tilted head, and seen in frames Z372 through to Z375, is the area from where the flap originated, and as is clearly seen in the frames provided by Robin, is on the side of his head, NOT the back.

...

ya need glasses, dude!

No glasses required at this end, dude, just non delusional common sense.

Edited March 26, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

No, in an effort to reconcile the Groden color images with the HSCA photographs, Humes was asked during

his deposition whether the patient had been given "a shampoo and a haircut" during the autopsy, to which

he replied (emphatically) "No, no, no, no, no . . .". See page 447 of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000),

where I published Hume's deposition with annotations by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. So that's wrong.

The right half of this scan is the area i beleive the grey patch seen in Zapruder to be located.

In the scan below the hair looks wet and appears to have been washed. ?

I am wondering if the grey patch was actually brain tissue from the "skull flap wound" onto the scalp

and was later washed out before the autopsy photo below was taken. ?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is a perfect illustration of Craig Lamson's ignorance about important developments in the case. The "new group" of Hollywood experts (in film restoration) were introduced in Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB, which Doug Horne wrote about in his "Addendum: The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood", pages 1352-1365. Since Horne's five-volume magnum opus was published in 2009, word of its existence should have reached Craig Lamson by this time, not to mention that I highlighted some of its most important findings in "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", 7 April 2010, http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994 (originally http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml). Since the publication of Horne's work was a major event and has been discussed extensively here and in other fora, while my piece was widely republished, there is no excuse for his ignorance about this development.

And since it cannot be seen in earlier frames, especially 313-317, for example, where the new group of Hollywood experts has determined that it was painted over in black (and crudely done),

New group? What happened to the "old group"?

And where the published work?

Edited March 24, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Every now and then, Jim DiEugenio has insinuated that I have somehow misrepresented or otherwise abused Sydney Wilkinson. I have no idea where this came from. I visited her in Sherman Oaks with Mike Pincher after Sydney and I had had lunch together and we were shown "the forensic copy" that she had obtained from the National Archives. Mike was taken aback because it is an extremely grainy and poor quality "fifth generation" copy, as Horne explains on page 1353 of Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB. Mike mentioned that at the time. We discussed it later, and I explained to him that apparently what they were studying was not affected by the extremely grainy and extensively scratched quality of the film. I have only the highest praise for the efforts of this new Hollywood group, whose work I have cited in several places, including, of course, "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". I have been so puzzled by DiEugenio's carping remark that I have written to Sydney but have received no reply. Since I reject the claim that Horne or I have done anything improper with regard to Sydney and her group--unless Mike's candid observation about the quality of the copy was misconstrued as an insult--I have no idea what that would be. I therefore challenge him to explain and justify his assertion, "What people like Horne and Fetzer have done to Wilkinson and her husband is really unfair", which I regard as a cheap shot that has no foundation in fact. If he cannot support his claim, it will be one more indication that this man is mediocre at research on even commonplace matters like this and he will have, once again, discredited himself.

I would not just dismiss the Hollywood Group so cavalierly.

The Hollywood Group consists of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others.

THey both work as film editors in Sherman Oaks where they have their own office. I met them at Lancer last year.

THey do not strike me as being off the wall kind of people who you can easily dismiss. And they do not agree with the more extreme theories of some of the alterationists e.g. that the whole film has been redone and we are looking at a cartoon.

What they do beleive is that the back of JFK's head has been patched over. And they make some serious arguments for that. I listened to them and they showed me one of their exhibits where they actually did the very dense digital transfer of frames. I don't want to go very more deeply into this exhibit, because I don't completely understand it technically. But it is interesting.

I probably will be visiting with them in April to see their whole presentation.

THey are not writing a book BTW. THey are preparing a DVD. But they are trying to track down some more exhibits about what exactly was the chain of evidence for the Z film, and what exactly happened to the stuff TIme Life had and where exactly it is today.

What people like Horne and Fetzer have done to Wilkinson and her husband is really unfair.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Considering that Josiah Thompson was the first to publish the Robert McClelland diagram (on page 107) in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), where he also acknowledges that the Harper fragment was a piece of occipital bone from the back of the head (on page 101), since he has already repudiated the "double-hit" study (of pages 90-95), which many of us have regarded as its most important contribution, by the time he is done disavowing his own work, there will be nothing left! I anticipate that this is all laying the foundation for his 50th-observance conversion to the conclusion that there "really was no conspiracy, after all"! If he doesn't understand the deceit and deception perpetrated by Duncan MacRae's shoddy attempt at obfuscation, then he really should be spending his time tracking down wayward spouses to establish adultery as a cause of action in divorce cases, which appears to be more suited to the current state of his research abilities. A man I once admire is leaving a sad legacy of distortion and betrayal.

Thanks Duncan. Perhaps if you're looking at a really bad copy of the Z film you might think it was the back of the head. Professor Fetzer has been claiming this for a long time. Thank you for publishing a copy of the Z film where it takes only a second or two to see clearly that it is the side of the head not the back of the head that shows red. Then there is the repeated but specious claim that we've heard over and over again for the last year... that is, the claim that the socalled "Hollywood Seven" have determined that frame 317 has some sort of patch overlaid on the back of Kennedy's head. First off, we have no idea of who the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" are. Second, they have come up with nothing. I've heard that the copy studied by them is so bad that no conclusions could be reached and that would explain why all we have heard from the "Hollywood Seven" is a deafening silence. So instead of hearing from the "Hollywood Seven" all we hear are claims of what they supposedly found from Professor Fetzer. The rest of his post is reheated garbage. We are all in your debt, Duncan, for getting to the bottom of this.

JT

Now anyone who claims to be unable to see the defect at the back of the head will be hard pressed to justify any such denial.

The light greyish looking area being hit by sunlight on Kennedy's leftward tilted head, and seen in frames Z372 through to Z375, is the area from where the flap originated, and as is clearly seen in the frames provided by Robin, is on the side of his head, NOT the back.

[Jack White]

I attempted to add another image, but the forum is blocking image uploads from me. Will someone post it for me? It is on the DPF forum.

The file name is WHERESNELLIE.

Jack

Edited March 24, 2011 by Jack White

[David Andrews]

Jack, you probably just need to delete some of your older (or larger) picture uploads.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So the witnesses who were actually there, including Robert McClelland, Charles Crenshaw, and the other nurses and doctors at Parkland, as well as Dealey Plaza witnesses such as Beverly Oliver and Ed Hoffman, and even Clint Hill, who was the first to peer into the 'fist-sized hole clearly visible at the back of the head", are all wrong and you, Duncan MacRae, are right? What's wrong with this picture? It took me a long time to figure out whether you were real or fake, where the answer turns out to be the same as for the film itself.

From "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html

Costella is certainly right about the importance of Clint Hill’s book-signing statement in comparison with the book itself, which is rather sketchy and vague relative to the sequence of events of greatest interest here. The video captures more detail and his demeanor in relating his extraordinary experiences. But even THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010) includes this sentence, stunning in simplicity but pregnant in ramifications:

And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head. (THE KENNEDY DETAIL, p. 217)

After all, if JFK had a fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head, it follows that (1) the eyewitnesses were right about its location, (2) the HSCA photograph and diagram are fake, (3) the autopsy X-rays were altered, and (4) Zapuder frames that don’t show it when they should were changed, precisely as we have found above. In fact, Clint Hill was far from the only expert who described that wound as “fist-sized”. When I edited ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), I invited Charles Crenshaw, M.D., to contribute a chapter and asked him to diagram the wounds as he had witnessed them at Parkland Hospital, where he was the last physician to observe them before he closed JFK’s eyelids as he was being wrapped in sheets and placed in the casket:

Charles told me that this defect was the size of a baseball or else the size of your fist when you double it up. The best witnesses and the best studies thus converge on the conclusion that strenuous efforts were made to conceal the true causes of the death of JFK from the American people.

Considering that Josiah Thompson was the first to publish the Robert McClelland diagram (on page 107) in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), where he also acknowledges that the Harper fragment was a piece of occipital bone from the back of the head (on page 101), since he has already repudiated the "double-hit" study (of pages 90-95), which many of us have regarded as its most important contribution, by the time he is done disavowing his own work, there will be nothing left! I anticipate that this is all laying the foundation for his 50th-observance conversion to the conclusion that there "really was no conspiracy, after all"! If he doesn't understand the deceit and deception perpetrated by Duncan MacRae's shoddy attempt at obfuscation, then he really should be spending his time tracking down wayward spouses to establish adultery as a cause of action in divorce cases, which appears to be more suited to the current state of his research abilities. A man I once admire is leaving a sad legacy of distortion and betrayal.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously, when you can't even tell the difference between the side of a head and the back of a head, unbelievable!

You have been unmasked for your inability to make a simple and accurate visual observation. You and Tonto make a great team.

Edited March 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jack, you probably just need to delete some of your older (or larger) picture uploads.

Not so...I have done that and HAVE PLENTY OF ATTACHMENT ROOM.

[Greg Burnham]

Jim Fetzer said:

The original appears to exist, but is difficult to locate. Rich DellaRosa, as it happens, had the opportunity to view it on three different occasions, as he explained in Appendix E of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).

Jim,

As a point of clarity, Rich and I both have maintained that, so far, it has not been possible to determine if the film that we (and others) saw:

1) was the unaltered "original" Zapruder film (both of us tend to believe that it was NOT) -- or

2) was a separate film taken that day from a similar location (both of us tend to believe that it WAS) -- and/or

3) was the same film that each other saw (no way of knowing for sure, but the similarities of our respective recollections are sufficient enough to accept that as highly probable);

As a result, we refer to what we saw as the "other film" as opposed to a copy of the unaltered "original" Zapruder Film. The quality of the "other film" was extremely high--by quite a margin--in comparison to that of the extant Zapruder film.

[Josiah Thompson]

The sketch on page 107 of "Six Seconds" simply illustrates what Dr. McClelland said. Although the Harper fragment was described as "occipit" bone by Billy Harper's uncle and this description appears in a contemporaneous FBI 302, it was a mistake. Dr. Angell straightened out all this for the House Committee. Is Professor Fetzer ignorant of this?

In 1967, I made a mistake in measuring the movement of JFK's head under impact. Between 312 and 313, I measured a forward movement of just over two inches. As David Wimp's studies have pointed out, this was a mistake. What I measured was the blur introduced by Zapruder moving his camera and not the movement of JFK's head. JFK was not hit in the head by two shots between 312 and 313 but by one shot from the right front. Knowledge about historical events is based on accretion... on the addition of new facts and the abandonment of old mistakes. By clearly and distinctly pointing out an important mistake, I am furthering that project. What is Professor Fetzer doing? I'm sure that's pretty obvious too.

We have been hearing about the socalled "Hollywood Seven" for over a year now. Fetzer confirmed that the 4th or 5th generation copy studied by the Wilkinsons is miserable. What a surprise! As was pointed out over a year ago a much better copy (the MPI transparencies) can be viewed at the Sixth Floor Museum. I take it that the deafening silence emerging from the the Wilkinsons and the socalled "Hollywood Seven" springs from the fact that better copies of the film don't confirm the claims Fetzer and his cohort have been making. If they come up with something, then it can be looked at. Now it's just partisan bloviation and its been going on for over a year. It shouldn't distract attention from the fact that Duncan has shown that Fetzer simply can't tell the difference between the back of the head and the side of the head. At least we're done with that piece of bloviation. And will Fetzer admit a mistake when he makes it? Not likely. He's made some huge errors... Anyone for Moorman-in-the-Street again?... and stubbornly refuses to ever admit he's wrong. That, of course, is his right and the privilege of pedestrian and insecure thinkers since the beginning of time. But not to see what Duncan has pointed out? That's a new stretch in denial.

JT

JT

Considering that Josiah Thompson was the first to publish the Robert McClelland diagram (on page 107) in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), where he also acknowledges that the Harper fragment was a piece of occipital bone from the back of the head (on page 101), since he has already repudiated the "double-hit" study (of pages 90-95), which many of us have regarded as its most important contribution, by the time he is done disavowing his own work, there will be nothing left! I anticipate that this is all laying the foundation for his 50th-observance conversion to the conclusion that there "really was no conspiracy, after all"! If he doesn't understand the deceit and deception perpetrated by Duncan MacRae's shoddy attempt at obfuscation, then he really should be spending his time tracking down wayward spouses to establish adultery as a cause of action in divorce cases, which appears to be more suited to the current state of his research abilities. A man I once admire is leaving a sad legacy of distortion and betrayal.

Thanks Duncan. Perhaps if you're looking at a really bad copy of the Z film you might think it was the back of the head. Professor Fetzer has been claiming this for a long time. Thank you for publishing a copy of the Z film where it takes only a second or two to see clearly that it is the side of the head not the back of the head that shows red. Then there is the repeated but specious claim that we've heard over and over again for the last year... that is, the claim that the socalled "Hollywood Seven" have determined that frame 317 has some sort of patch overlaid on the back of Kennedy's head. First off, we have no idea of who the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" are. Second, they have come up with nothing. I've heard that the copy studied by them is so bad that no conclusions could be reached and that would explain why all we have heard from the "Hollywood Seven" is a deafening silence. So instead of hearing from the "Hollywood Seven" all we hear are claims of what they supposedly found from Professor Fetzer. The rest of his post is reheated garbage. We are all in your debt, Duncan, for getting to the bottom of this.

JT

Now anyone who claims to be unable to see the defect at the back of the head will be hard pressed to justify any such denial.

The light greyish looking area being hit by sunlight on Kennedy's leftward tilted head, and seen in frames Z372 through to Z375, is the area from where the flap originated, and as is clearly seen in the frames provided by Robin, is on the side of his head, NOT the back.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Josiah Thompson

[David Andrews]

Not to obfuscate - but is the slowing, stopping, and speeding away of the limo - as we see it in the extant Z-film. or as we might posit it - factored into any study of JFK's head movement, Zapruder's camera jerks, etc? Can we learn anything about the motion of the limo from either JFK or Zapruder?

Edited March 24, 2011 by David Andrews

[Josiah Thompson]

Dismissal or not I guess we'll just have to wait and see with what they come up with. It's been over a year now that Fetzer has been claiming that the Hollywood Seven concluding something yet the Hollywood Seven concludes nothing and we don't even know who they are supposed to be.

My bet is that Fetzer and friends persuaded the Wilkinsons that they should make a DVD about their theories of the Z film. Big $$$. The Wilkinsons looked into it and contacted Rollie Zavada and various real film experts in Hollywood. Their enthusiasm shriveled when they realized how bad their copy of the film was and that better copies were viewable at the 6th Floor Museum. Unless you're using the best copy of the film, you're incredibly vulnerable to challenge and impeachment.

I wish the Wilkinsons luck. I've been in touch with them. My only complaint is Fetzer claiming something has happened when it hasn't.

JT

I would not just dismiss the Hollywood Group so cavalierly.

The Hollywood Group consists of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others.

THey both work as film editors in Sherman Oaks where they have their own office. I met them at Lancer last year.

THey do not strike me as being off the wall kind of people who you can easily dismiss. And they do not agree with the more extreme theories of some of the alterationists e.g. that the whole film has been redone and we are looking at a cartoon.

What they do beleive is that the back of JFK's head has been patched over. And they make some serious arguments for that. I listened to them and they showed me one of their exhibits where they actually did the very dense digital transfer of frames. I don't want to go very more deeply into this exhibit, because I don't completely understand it technically. But it is interesting.

I probably will be visiting with them in April to see their whole presentation.

THey are not writing a book BTW. THey are preparing a DVD. But they are trying to track down some more exhibits about what exactly was the chain of evidence for the Z film, and what exactly happened to the stuff TIme Life had and where exactly it is today.

What people like Horne and Fetzer have done to Wilkinson and her husband is really unfair.

[Robin Unger]

Jack, you probably just need to delete some of your older (or larger) picture uploads.

Not so...I have done that and HAVE PLENTY OF ATTACHMENT ROOM.

It's not just you Jack.

I am also being blocked from " uploading " images to the forum.

I used photobucket to post the images.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

I seem to recall from reading the medical evidence a few years ago, that there was mention of a " rubber patch" used to patch up kennedy's skull.

does anyone know where exactly in the skull the rubber dam was placed. ?

And was it used before or after the autopsy photo's were taken.. ?

Groden color scan composite: ( using two separate color back of the head photo's )

Keep your eye on the RULER and the THUMB.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Robin Unger