Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) If anyone sought to evade the loss of their lives and harassment from the likes of you, neither I nor anyone else can blame them. PAT'S RESPONSE: The "loss of their lives"? What are you talking about? You self-delusion is only comparable to Tink's denial the assassination films are authentic--except HE doesn't actually believe it! The problem for you, I believe, is that you adopt a completely unwarranted antagonistic approach toward the witnesses who were there, the physicians who treated him, and even the experts who have studied the X-rays. If you better understood the conventions of ordinary human discourse, you would interpret their words and actions in accord with the principle of charity (by assuming that they are telling the truth to the best of their ability) and the principle of humanity (by assuming that their motives are the same as those of other human beings), who are not normally disposed to cheat, lie and mislead. If you were only to change your attitude, then I believe you would understand what you have so seriously misrepresented. Otherwise, you will continue to grossly misrepresent their words and actions! PAT'S RESPONSE: Your trying to hide behind this "principle of charity" is beyond hypocritical. You assume it "charitable" to assume the Dealey Plaza witnesses failing to note your presumed "blow-out" on the back of the head, (which is to say all of them), mistaken. You consider it "charitable" to assume the witnesses believing the wound was at or near the back of the head, but claiming the wound was also at or near the top of the head (which is to say most of them) mistaken. You consider it "charitable,"moreover, to assume the witnesses deferring to the accuracy of the autopsy photos (which is to say most of them) cowardly, and scared for their lives. Well, that's not "charity." It's insulting rubbish. When analyzing conflicting accounts of an incident, it is only logical to assume, as I, that some of the witnesses were mistaken, even all the witnesses mistaken. What is not logical, or acceptable, in my opinion, is to pretend the bulk of the witnesses claimed there was a wound low on the back of the head, when virtually NONE of them ever claimed such a thing. PAT'S CHALLENGE: You have made it clear you believe Kennedy had two large head wounds: a bone flap near his temple, and a large blow-out low on the back of his head almost entirely below the top level of his ear. FIND US ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS WHO SAW BOTH THESE WOUNDS. Or acknowledge no such witness exists, and that you assume ALL the witnesses you claim support your analysis failed to see one of the wounds. So you are acknowledging that you are so ignorant of the history of harassment and intimidation of assassination witnesses you do not even know the story of how Malcolm Perry, M.D., was emotionally and mentally brutalized for speaking the truth about the wound to the throat, which he described THREE TIMES as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference, which I may have been the first to publish as an appendix to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998)? You really ought to get up-to-speed and read about Audrey Bell's response to the depression Malcolm Perry displayed the morning after the assassination. And are you unaware than more than one-hundred (100) witnesses related to the assassination were either murdered or else died mysterious deaths? Whole books have been written about them, including JFK: THE DEAD WITNESSES (1994) by Craig Roberts and John Armstrong. HAVE YOU NEVER READ IT, EITHER? Since Thomas Edward Robinson is not only a "credibly witness" but probably the most credible, since he of all witnesses had the most time to observe them, I am stunned that you would make that claim. Moreover, I have already given you a composite diagram from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) in which Lifton demonstrates the differences between the reports from Parkland (of the blow-out at the back of the head) and from the HSCA (where the skull flap is easily discernible). Are you really so ignorant as to suppose that I would make up "the principle of charity" and "the principle of humanity"? Egad! I thought you were actually an educated man who was capable of conducting research. Apparently, you are so ignorant that you have no idea of the conventions that govern human conversational contexts. Do some research, buster! I am sick and tired of having to spoon-feed someone who intellectually is still in their diapers! Consider the following: Principle of charity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings." Principle of humanity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The principle of humanity, states that when interpreting another speaker we must assume that his or her beliefs and desires are connected to each other and to reality in some way, and attribute to him or her "the propositional attitudes one supposes one would have oneself in those circumstances" (Daniel Dennett, "Mid-Term Examination," in The Intentional Stance, p. 343). The principle of humanity was named by Richard Grandy (then an assistant professor of philosophy at Princeton University) in 1973. Edited January 23, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Of course craig, I have no conception as to what you've seen, or not seen, however one can assume by your dance here this past week, YOU have NOT seen the 4K imagery discussed in this thread those that have, can understand your apprehension. Possibly a game changer! Is it a 10 ton elephant sitting in the middle of the 6th floor museum? I doubt it, but, its surely an issue that needs to be addresses by the DP film-photo purists.... TIP for the craigster: for under a grand (perhaps a bit more these days) you can get the same 3rd generation 35mm Zapruder film from NARA, yes folks NARA. Get it in the hands of a BlackMagic-DiVinci system film colorist or, a competent Rank-Cintel operator. quote on: ...Zapruder Camera Original 8mm > NARA 35mm Interneg > NARA 35mm Interpos > Our Dupe Neg... quote off what don't you understand Craig? Of courses I've not seen the H7 scan Dave, but quite frankly it's just another scan. Their material is not unique. There might even be better.... No Dave, Its 8mm KODACHROME REVERSAL original> 35mm 2275 with 15% preflash, 4x blowup color internegative > 35mm 2383 PROJECTION PRINT FILM > color internegative, type unknown> digital scan. This is not 5219 or 5260 and a grip truck full of 10k HMI's. It's an original on 8 mm KODACHROME REVERSAL ... whats the dynamic range of that emulsion dave? As for the operator and software...its a digital STILL.. Long and short of it dave, they are in a very bad place. Gonna be near impossible to prove anything other that "I see it, just believe me". and there are a BOATLOAD of problems they will have a very hard time overcoming even with that opinion. Lets get real. Three generations removed from a projection reversal film? Best of luck with that...TWO YEARS LATER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) ... No Dave, Its 8mm KODACHROME REVERSAL original> 35mm 2275 with 15% preflash, 4x blowup color internegative > 35mm 2383 PROJECTION PRINT FILM > color internegative, type unknown> digital scan. This is not 5219 or 5260 and a grip truck full of 10k HMI's. It's an original on 8 mm KODACHROME REVERSAL ... whats the dynamic range of that emulsion dave? ... film emulsion? irrelevant dude.... it's what the 3rd generation NARA provided film contains, focus--you're dancing mightly craig, wonder why... 8mm Kodak film, it is what it is, and you're stuck with it... perhaps you should direct your frustrations at NARA for providing 3rd generation 35mm content? Or go find Rollie... better yet get a 3rd generation copy of your own (but, I suspect you already have it)....you're not getting much traction here. HMI's? lmao passe man, seems you're out of touch with 'grip' equipment-location work, too Edited January 23, 2012 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 ... No Dave, Its 8mm KODACHROME REVERSAL original> 35mm 2275 with 15% preflash, 4x blowup color internegative > 35mm 2383 PROJECTION PRINT FILM > color internegative, type unknown> digital scan. This is not 5219 or 5260 and a grip truck full of 10k HMI's. It's an original on 8 mm KODACHROME REVERSAL ... whats the dynamic range of that emulsion dave? ... film emulsion? irrelevant dude.... it's what the 3rd generation NARA provided film contains, focus--you're dancing mightly craig, wonder why... 8mm Kodak film, it is what it is, and your stuck with it... sounds like you should direct your frustrations at NARA? Or go find Rollie... HMI's? lmao passe man, seems you're out of touch with location work, too Nice try at duck and cover dave. That scan can't even begin to contain the tonal range of the original dave...and of course THAT'S the problem . leds and kino-flos? Or HMI's. passe? sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) If anyone sought to evade the loss of their lives and harassment from the likes of you, neither I nor anyone else can blame them. PAT'S RESPONSE: The "loss of their lives"? What are you talking about? You self-delusion is only comparable to Tink's denial the assassination films are authentic--except HE doesn't actually believe it! The problem for you, I believe, is that you adopt a completely unwarranted antagonistic approach toward the witnesses who were there, the physicians who treated him, and even the experts who have studied the X-rays. If you better understood the conventions of ordinary human discourse, you would interpret their words and actions in accord with the principle of charity (by assuming that they are telling the truth to the best of their ability) and the principle of humanity (by assuming that their motives are the same as those of other human beings), who are not normally disposed to cheat, lie and mislead. If you were only to change your attitude, then I believe you would understand what you have so seriously misrepresented. Otherwise, you will continue to grossly misrepresent their words and actions! PAT'S RESPONSE: Your trying to hide behind this "principle of charity" is beyond hypocritical. You assume it "charitable" to assume the Dealey Plaza witnesses failing to note your presumed "blow-out" on the back of the head, (which is to say all of them), mistaken. You consider it "charitable" to assume the witnesses believing the wound was at or near the back of the head, but claiming the wound was also at or near the top of the head (which is to say most of them) mistaken. You consider it "charitable,"moreover, to assume the witnesses deferring to the accuracy of the autopsy photos (which is to say most of them) cowardly, and scared for their lives. Well, that's not "charity." It's insulting rubbish. When analyzing conflicting accounts of an incident, it is only logical to assume, as I, that some of the witnesses were mistaken, even all the witnesses mistaken. What is not logical, or acceptable, in my opinion, is to pretend the bulk of the witnesses claimed there was a wound low on the back of the head, when virtually NONE of them ever claimed such a thing. PAT'S CHALLENGE: You have made it clear you believe Kennedy had two large head wounds: a bone flap near his temple, and a large blow-out low on the back of his head almost entirely below the top level of his ear. FIND US ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS WHO SAW BOTH THESE WOUNDS. Or acknowledge no such witness exists, and that you assume ALL the witnesses you claim support your analysis failed to see one of the wounds. So you are acknowledging that you are so ignorant of the history of harassment and intimidation of assassination witnesses you do not even know the story of how Malcolm Perry, M.D., was emotionally and mentally brutalized for speaking the truth about the wound to the throat, which he described THREE TIMES as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference, which I may have been the first to publish as an appendix to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998)? PAT'S RESPONSE: Yep, as discussed on my webpage, Perry was harassed into pretending he'd never called the wound an entrance. But this is about the head wounds. If the Parkland doctors were pressured into changing their WC testimony re the head wounds it certainly wasn't very successful, as they mostly described it as a large wound on the back of the head. Over the years, moreover, a number of these doctors spoke openly with Lifton, Groden, etc, about their recollections, and yet NONE of them described the TWO separate head wounds you are pushing. You really ought to get up-to-speed and read about Audrey Bell's response to the depression Malcolm Perry displayed the morning after the assassination. And are you unaware than more than one-hundred (100) witnesses related to the assassination were either murdered or else died mysterious deaths? Whole books have been written about them, including JFK: THE DEAD WITNESSES (1994) by Craig Roberts and John Armstrong. HAVE YOU NEVER READ IT, EITHER? PAT"S RESPONSE: I've read Marrs' mysterious death list and found it full of non-mysteries. I've never read the Roberts book. Very few researchers of any stripe have read that book. It's an incredibly obscure paperback that goes for 69 bucks on Amazon, even though it's less than two hundred pages long. Now, to be clear, I believe a few of these deaths are quite mysterious indeed. But 100 of them? Get real. Since Thomas Edward Robinson is not only a "credibly witness" but probably the most credible, PAT"S RESPONSE: This is malarkey. If you believed he was the "most credible" you'd have been at least marginally aware of his 1977 HSCA interview--the only time his words were recorded for posterity, near as I can gather. And you'd have known, without my telling you, that he made no mention of the skull flap he described 15 years later. since he of all witnesses had the most time to observe them, I am stunned that you would make that claim. PAT'S RESPONSE: Read the interview, Jim. Robinson did not get a good look at the head wounds during the autopsy, nor did he re-construct the head. He was busy elsewhere. Moreover, I have already given you a composite diagram from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) in which Lifton demonstrates the differences between the reports from Parkland (of the blow-out at the back of the head) and from the HSCA (where the skull flap is easily discernible). Are you really so ignorant as to suppose that I would make up "the principle of charity" and "the principle of humanity"? Egad! I thought you were actually an educated man who was capable of conducting research. Apparently, you are so ignorant that you have no idea of the conventions that govern human conversational contexts. Do some research, buster! PAT"S RESPONSE: LOL. I accused you of no such thing. While your fake outrage is amusing on a certain level, it does little to conceal that you--who claim to be so charitable to the witnesses--have long been pushing an interpretation of the wounds in opposition to their recollections. I am sick and tired of having to spoon-feed someone who intellectually is still in their diapers! PAT'S RESPONSE: Sticks and stones, etc. Actually, I have a comeback to that one, which some here might enjoy. Here it is... Well, Jim, if I'm still in my diapers, I'm at least young enough where I can look forward to getting out of them. Not so, you... Edited January 23, 2012 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Maybe someone can explain what happened at 154-158 and 207-212... In BOTH instances the intersprocket area gets blacked out... In the WCR version of 212... not only is there a tear in 207 just below Rosemary Willis... but there also seems to be a straight razor slice both under this tear and in z212 (or may be artifacts from the copying process?) My question... If the tear is published in the WCR and z207 was damaged to that extent... how do we see a normal z207 and 212 after the fact... with z208-211 re inserted and no evidence of the splice? How was z207 and 212 FIXED? z207 looks pretty badly damaged yet comes out clear and fine later on... Where as 155 remains pretty badly damaged... do you have any idea what happened to those frames for them to come out looking like that? Edited January 24, 2012 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) If anyone sought to evade the loss of their lives and harassment from the likes of you, neither I nor anyone else can blame them. PAT'S RESPONSE: The "loss of their lives"? What are you talking about? You self-delusion is only comparable to Tink's denial the assassination films are authentic--except HE doesn't actually believe it! The problem for you, I believe, is that you adopt a completely unwarranted antagonistic approach toward the witnesses who were there, the physicians who treated him, and even the experts who have studied the X-rays. If you better understood the conventions of ordinary human discourse, you would interpret their words and actions in accord with the principle of charity (by assuming that they are telling the truth to the best of their ability) and the principle of humanity (by assuming that their motives are the same as those of other human beings), who are not normally disposed to cheat, lie and mislead. If you were only to change your attitude, then I believe you would understand what you have so seriously misrepresented. Otherwise, you will continue to grossly misrepresent their words and actions! PAT'S RESPONSE: Your trying to hide behind this "principle of charity" is beyond hypocritical. You assume it "charitable" to assume the Dealey Plaza witnesses failing to note your presumed "blow-out" on the back of the head, (which is to say all of them), mistaken. You consider it "charitable" to assume the witnesses believing the wound was at or near the back of the head, but claiming the wound was also at or near the top of the head (which is to say most of them) mistaken. You consider it "charitable,"moreover, to assume the witnesses deferring to the accuracy of the autopsy photos (which is to say most of them) cowardly, and scared for their lives. Well, that's not "charity." It's insulting rubbish. When analyzing conflicting accounts of an incident, it is only logical to assume, as I, that some of the witnesses were mistaken, even all the witnesses mistaken. What is not logical, or acceptable, in my opinion, is to pretend the bulk of the witnesses claimed there was a wound low on the back of the head, when virtually NONE of them ever claimed such a thing. THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF CONVERSATIONAL EXCHANGES BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS, AS YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT, GRASP THAT WE SHOULD DO OUR BEST TO MAXIMIZE THE TRUTH CONTENT OF OTHERS AS AN EXPECTATION OF CIVIL DISCOURSE. UNLESS THERE ARE REASONS THAT ARE GOOD ONES TO OVERRIDE THAT PRESUMPTION, WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT THE WITNESSES ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO TELL THE TRUTH. YOUR BINGE OF INDICTING EVERY WITNESS, INCLUDING THE PHYSICIANS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING YOUR BIZARRE THEORY IS INDEFENSIBLE. PAT'S CHALLENGE: You have made it clear you believe Kennedy had two large head wounds: a bone flap near his temple, and a large blow-out low on the back of his head almost entirely below the top level of his ear. FIND US ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS WHO SAW BOTH THESE WOUNDS. Or acknowledge no such witness exists, and that you assume ALL the witnesses you claim support your analysis failed to see one of the wounds. So you are acknowledging that you are so ignorant of the history of harassment and intimidation of assassination witnesses you do not even know the story of how Malcolm Perry, M.D., was emotionally and mentally brutalized for speaking the truth about the wound to the throat, which he described THREE TIMES as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference, which I may have been the first to publish as an appendix to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998)? PAT'S RESPONSE: Yep, as discussed on my webpage, Perry was harassed into pretending he'd never called the wound an entrance. But this is about the head wounds. If the Parkland doctors were pressured into changing their WC testimony re the head wounds it certainly wasn't very successful, as they mostly described it as a large wound on the back of the head. Over the years, moreover, a number of these doctors spoke openly with Lifton, Groden, etc, about their recollections, and yet NONE of them described the TWO separate head wounds you are pushing. NO ONE ELSE HAS GONE TO SUCH EXTRAORDINARY EXTREMES IN ATTEMPTING TO IMPUGN ORDINARY CITIZENS, POLICE OFFICERS AND EXPERIENCED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS BY ATTEMPTING TO DISCREDIT THEIR TESTIMONY BASED UPON MINOR VARIATIONS IN WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT DIFFERENCES IN THEIR LOCATION, DISTRACTIONS, AND POINTS OF VIEW. YOUR ATTEMPTS DO NOT DISCREDIT THEM SO MUCH AS DISPLAY THE PERVERSITY OF YOUR APPROACH IN VIOLATING THE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF CHARITY AND OF HUMANITY. You really ought to get up-to-speed and read about Audrey Bell's response to the depression Malcolm Perry displayed the morning after the assassination. And are you unaware than more than one-hundred (100) witnesses related to the assassination were either murdered or else died mysterious deaths? Whole books have been written about them, including JFK: THE DEAD WITNESSES (1994) by Craig Roberts and John Armstrong. HAVE YOU NEVER READ IT, EITHER? PAT"S RESPONSE: I've read Marrs' mysterious death list and found it full of non-mysteries. I've never read the Roberts book. Very few researchers of any stripe have read that book. It's an incredibly obscure paperback that goes for 69 bucks on Amazon, even though it's less than two hundred pages long. Now, to be clear, I believe a few of these deaths are quite mysterious indeed. But 100 of them? Get real. ONE MORE INDICATION THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I HAVE A COPY OF THE BOOK IN HAND, WHICH IS A PAPERBACK THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1995 BY FIRST TYPHOON PRESS. THE PRICE PRINTED ON THE BACK COVER IS $11.95. I THOUGHT THAT THE DEATHS OF JKF WITNESSES WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE, BUT APPARENTLY I SHOULD HAVE QUALIFIED THAT PRESUMPTION TO THE CLASS OF COMPETENT STUDENTS OF JFK. I HAVE NEVER KNOWN ANYONE SO ARROGANT IN PRESUMING THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR BELIEFS ARE THE BOUNDARIES OF TRUTH. Since Thomas Edward Robinson is not only a "credibly witness" but probably the most credible, PAT"S RESPONSE: This is malarkey. If you believed he was the "most credible" you'd have been at least marginally aware of his 1977 HSCA interview--the only time his words were recorded for posterity, near as I can gather. And you'd have known, without my telling you, that he made no mention of the skull flap he described 15 years later. THE SKULL FLAP WAS CLEARLY INCIDENTAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET WHO HAS MAKE IT INTO THE CENTER OF THE CASE, WHEN THAT IS OBVIOUSLY UNJUSTIFIABLE. THE NEWMANS WITNESSED IT AND YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH IT BUT THAT PRETTY MUCH EXHAUSTS THE UNIVERSE OF THOSE WHO ARE PREOCCUPIED WITH IT. AS I HAVE OBSERVED, THE HSCA FEATURED IT IN ITS DIAGRAMS AND PHOTOGRAPHS, WHICH IN RELATION TO THE BLOW OUT WERE OBVIOUSLY FAKED. AND THOMAS INCLUDED IT IN HIS LATER CONVERSATION. since he of all witnesses had the most time to observe them, I am stunned that you would make that claim. PAT'S RESPONSE: Read the interview, Jim. Robinson did not get a good look at the head wounds during the autopsy, nor did he re-construct the head. He was busy elsewhere. THIS ANSWER, AMONG ALL YOU HAVE ADVANCED, DEMONSTRATES YOUR INCOMPETENCE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON WAS PRESENT ALONG WITH ED REED WHEN HUMES TOOK THE CRANIAL SAW TO JFK'S HEAD AND ENLARGED THE WOUND. BUT HE WAS ALSO THE MORTICIAN WHO PREPARED THE BODY FOR THE FORMAL STATE FUNERAL. HE HAD MORE TIME THAN ANY OTHER WITNESS TO STUDY THE WOUNDS AND FILLED THOSE SHRAPNEL WOUNDS IN HIS FACE WITH WAX. IF ANYONE HAS ANY DOUBTS ABOUT YOUR LACK OF COMPETENCE, THIS IS DEFINITIVE PROOF. Moreover, I have already given you a composite diagram from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) in which Lifton demonstrates the differences between the reports from Parkland (of the blow-out at the back of the head) and from the HSCA (where the skull flap is easily discernible). Are you really so ignorant as to suppose that I would make up "the principle of charity" and "the principle of humanity"? Egad! I thought you were actually an educated man who was capable of conducting research. Apparently, you are so ignorant that you have no idea of the conventions that govern human conversational contexts. Do some research, buster! PAT"S RESPONSE: LOL. I accused you of no such thing. While your fake outrage is amusing on a certain level, it does little to conceal that you--who claim to be so charitable to the witnesses--have long been pushing an interpretation of the wounds in opposition to their recollections. THERE IS NOTHING "FAKE" ABOUT MY OUTRAGE IN HAVING TO SPEND TIME AND EFFORT IN DEALING WITH THE MOST INCOMPETENT STUDENT OF THE DEATH OF JFK I HAVE EVEN ENCOUNTERED. THE PROBLEM WITH YOU--AND THE REASON I EVEN BOTHER--IS THAT OTHERS MAY BE TAKEN IN BY THE AURA OF EXPERTISE THAT EXUDES FROM YOUR EVERY PORE, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE GROSSLY INCOMPETENT, AS YOUR LAST ANSWER DISPLAYED. YOU PROMOTE EXTREMELY INDEFENSIBLE THEORIES WITH THE ZEAL OF A MISSIONARY WITHOUT THE LEAST COMPREHENSION OF YOUR MASSIVE IGNORANCE. I am sick and tired of having to spoon-feed someone who intellectually is still in their diapers! PAT'S RESPONSE: Sticks and stones, etc. Actually, I have a comeback to that one, which some here might enjoy. Here it is... Well, Jim, if I'm still in my diapers, I'm at least young enough where I can look forward to getting out of them. Not so, you... DID YOU MISS THIS ADDENDUM? Principle of charity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings." Principle of humanity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The principle of humanity, states that when interpreting another speaker we must assume that his or her beliefs and desires are connected to each other and to reality in some way, and attribute to him or her "the propositional attitudes one supposes one would have oneself in those circumstances" (Daniel Dennett, "Mid-Term Examination," in The Intentional Stance, p. 343). The principle of humanity was named by Richard Grandy (then an assistant professor of philosophy at Princeton University) in 1973. JHF: AS I COMPOSE THIS, ED SCHULTZ ON MSNBC IS DOING HIS "PSYCHO-TALK" SEGMENT. I FIND THAT COINCIDENCE FITTING. Edited January 24, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 General Concepts • The basic concept is that the assassination did not happen as set forth in The Warren Report—that basic facts were changed via the alteration of this film within hours of the shooting, its subsequent dissemination via Life magazine, and its use as key evidence in all subsequent investigations. It is highly probable that these alterations worked hand in hand with the alteration of the President’s wounds (which became the basis for a false autopsy) to create the appearance of one assassin, shooting from behind. Certainly, by the time the President’s body arrived at Bethesda, there was no evidence of a shot from the front. As far as the Zapruder imagery was concerned, key frames showed a large, white-ish, almost translucent blob (supposedly the Bethesda exit wound) on the forward right hand side of JFK’s head, a wound not observed five minutes later by observers at Parkland Hospital, who reported an exit wound at the rear (where key Zapruder frames show a largely blacked-out area). Moreover, at the street location where most witnesses saw the car momentarily stop, no stop occurs; but, at that juncture, the President’s head snaps violently backward (an artifact of film editing, I am convinced). • Those newly arrived to this case view tend to think of the backward snap as powerful evidence of a shot from the front. Perfectly understandable, but one can’t have it both ways: if the car stopped, then the backward snap is an artifact of an altered film. This doesn’t mean that the President was not shot in the head from the front—based on the Dallas doctors observations of an exit wound at the back of the head, he certainly was. But that conclusion must rest on the Dallas medical data, not on the “backward snap” on the Z film. • The strongest circumstantial evidence that the Zapruder film must have been edited is the great majority of witnesses at or near the car who say it stopped, momentarily, whereas the car does not stop on the film. True, it slows down— somewhat—but it does not stop. And then it takes off. Rapidly. Moreover, Clint Hill’s “race to catch the car” (readily visible on the Nix film) which he “overtakes” by Z frame 369 would be extremely difficult to accomplish in reality. When I was in Dallas in 1971, at age 32, I raced down the street at top speed, attempting to simulate “overtaking” an accelerating car. I advise anyone who thinks that what the films show Hill doing can be readily duplicated to just try it. • The car stop would imply that the assassination, from the standpoint of the Secret agents guarding the President, was not a six second “we wuz caught by surprise” affair, but rather an event lasting between 10 and 20 seconds (the elapsed time cited by Sheriff Decker), depending on the “length of the stop” in time, i.e., on the time expended in the deceleration and then the acceleration of the car. (time “lost” when the frames were deleted in the editing process, and a “cinematic reality” substituted for what actually occurred). [Pig on a Leash (2003); By David S. Lifton] 98 • The removal of the car stop—which in effect means that events were speeded up—would account for the rapid snap backward of the President’s head on the film. If the film was altered, that backward snap has little to do with a bullet impact, but everything to do with film editing. It is an artifact of an altered film. • The car stop implies the Secret Service was negligent, at least, and on two counts: actually stopping the car during the shooting, and then failing to react to protect the President. Notably, it was the same agency—the Secret Service—that had custody of JFK’s body that also quickly obtained control of the Zapruder film. So the potential exists here for the same officials who failed in their assigned duties then controlling the evidence which would have documented that malfeasance; and perhaps worse, exposed its personnel to the charge of involvement in the assassination. • The alteration of the film would explain why the head wound imagery shows wounds not visible at Parkland Hospital some five minutes later, and why the one wound that was seen at Parkland—by most of the doctors and nurses— appears on the film as a blacked out area at the back of the head. Whether the primary purpose of film alteration was the car-stop, or the alteration of wound imagery, is debata ble. Both seem to have occurred. • In its very first issue carrying some 30 film frames (Life, 11/29/63), the detailed caption copy failed to report any visible head impact at all. The caption text implies JFK suffered all his wound when he was behind the highway sign. This of course changed, in later issues, but raises the question of whether Life had been provided with some kind of “early edit” for that first issue. • The fact that the FBI Exhibit given to the Warren Commission stops at Zapruder frame 334 contributed to the Commission not being aware that certain film frames (i.e., Z-335 and Z-337) contained striking head wound imagery clearly at variance with the head wound description in the autopsy report. [(Chapter 20 of Best Evidence develops this matter in detail: that the autopsy report “head wound”, albeit large, encompasses the rear of the head; whereas the head wound depicted in the autopsy photographs—and, for that matter, on frames 335 and 337 of the Z film, which appear to serve to “showcase” the head wound—extends towards the front.)] • The Zapruder film was sold to Life magazine the day after the assassination under circumstances that were peculiar. When the bidding limit was reached, Zapruder went along with a price of $50,000 even though he wanted more. Stolley, the Life representative, does not seemed to be involved in this affair. He appears to have been the proverbial potted plant. Life publisher C.D. Jackson, whose name was on the contract, was a specialist in psychological warfare under Eisenhower, and a close friend of former CIA Director Allen Dulles. Jackson, as columnist Drew Pearson noted, was always pulling the CIA’s chestnuts out of the fire, and this may be another example of that behavior. Most peculiar of all is that the film—purchased for around $900,000 in 2003 money—was not exploited as a motion picture film so as to maximize the return on the investment. Media companies don’t normally operate that way. [Pig on a Leash (2003); By David S. Lifton] 99 • The importance of the film having been sold to someone so close to the CIA may mean that the time frame for alteration was more flexible; i.e., that events pertaining to alteration or last minute substitution possibly occurred after the arrival of the film at Life. That is by no means a certainty. If a technical team was working on the film by Friday night (and the source for such special effects expertise was probably Los Angeles, although conceivably the film was not brought there, but rather some persons were flown east) I see no reason why the job couldn’t have been substantially completed by Sunday night. The result, of course, would have to be printed on Kodachrome stock (but couldn’t be processed at Dallas, where the genuine original had already been processed) and that’s why the experience of the CIA’s Homer McMahon, as reported to the ARRB, is important. McMahon reports that it was Saturday or Sunday night when “Agent Smith” (of the Secret Service) showed up at the CIA’s NPIC color lab carrying a 16 mm Kodachrome positive. Smith said he had just come from Rochester, that the item he was carrying (a Kodachrome positive) had been processed at Hawkeyeworks, a top secret Government lab run by Kodak, that “the subject matter was to be treated as ‘above top secret’”, and he was requesting NPIC’s assistance in the creation of some 28 color blowups for briefing boards. (See Appendix C). • Mrs. Zapruder told me in November 1971 that Abe “gave them the film,” clearly implying he had parted with the original, and at an early hour. Local newspaper stories state that Abe Zapruder was closeted with “government agents” into the evening. Years later, Life representative Stolley said he couldn’t find Zapruder at home until midnight Friday, and that when he expressed his interest in viewing it as soon as possible, Zapruder begged off. He was tired, he had been driving around all night, he said; and would prefer seeing Stolley in the morning. Zapruder’s business partner Erwin Swartz said he took two film cans to the Dallas Naval Air Station on Friday night. All this raises the question of whether Zapruder possessed the original on Friday night. • On Saturday morning, with all other bidders excluded, Zapruder had a peculiar session with Stolley resulting in a sale—but only for print rights—for $50,000. At that point, Zapruder retained the “film rights”, i.e., the right to sell his property as a motion picture, as long as he waited until 29 November. But by Monday, 25 November, that was precluded when more money was pledged, and it became an “all rights” deal (with Zapruder retaining no film rights, indeed, no rights at all). The new sale price was $150,000 and the contract specified an annual payment schedule: $25,000 per annum, payable in early January 1964, through January, 1968. The entire deal—$150,000—would correspond, in today’s money, to about $900,000. (How and why the film was returned to the Zapruder family in 1975 for $1 has never been adequately explained). • The actual 8 mm film delivered to Life has two splices. The first—where frame 207 is spliced to frame 212—appears in the segment of the film published in Warren Commission Exhibit 885, in Volume 18 of the Commission’s 26 Volumes. That splice was discovered shortly after the 26 Volumes were published in November 1964. As previously noted, in October 1965 at our very first meeting, I brought that splice to the attention of former Warren [Pig on a Leash (2003); By David S. Lifton] 100 Commission counsel Wesley Liebeler. The next day he wrote fellow his former colleague, attorney Norman Redlich, suggesting an FBI investigation. (See Best Evidence.) In January, 1967, Life “explained” the splice, claiming a technician had an “oops” moment, and dropped the film. But Life never provided the name of the technician, and in nearly four decades since Dallas, no technician from Life has ever appeared to verify any of these assertions. Moreover, this January 1967 explanation failed to mention the existence of another splice, just as obvious, that existed in the unpublished portion of the film (around frame 155). This second splice was discovered in early 1969. Life never mentioned this second splice, nor did Josiah Thompson, who contracted to work with Life in 1966, and who made extensive use of these materials. • The two areas of splicing in the original should not be considered indicative of the way the film was edited and altered (see next section for those details). The kind of editing being discussed would not have been done mechanically, and in 8mm format. Almost certainly it was done optically (in 16 or 35 mm format), utilizing an optical printer. In short, the “editing” being considered here did not involve pasting 8mm film pieces together; but was, rather, “optical editing” done in 16 or 35 mm format and on an optical printer. • The most reasonable hypothesis to account for the two splices in the so called “original Zapruder film” that ended up at Life is that the final reduction print (i.e. to 8mm)—an item which had “material in the sprocket hole area” (just as a camera original should)—was created in 3 segments (i.e., A, B, and C) and that before sending it off to Life, A was pasted to B, and then B to C. Why this happened probably concerns the “left margin” problem and will be explained below. But, in my opinion, the two splices pertain to some such peripheral “manufacturing” issue and have nothing to do with the actual editing of the film’s content. • The “blowup” of the 8mm Zapruder film, back to 35mm—an event important to Life, and to the JFK research community—was the result of the ingenuity and craftsmanship of Moses Weitzman, at EFX, in 1967. That 1967 “reenlargement” is unrelated to its original (1963) alteration. But that “reenlargement” is valuable because it produced a copy of the “original” that was (after Weitzman’s handiwork) then back in a format (i.e., 35 mm) close to that in which the original alteration must have taken place. Consequently, all the anomalies on the 8mm (and which Life called its “original”) were magnified on those 35mm “Weitzman copies” and are more readily visible, easily measured, etc. But the general timeline must be kept firmly in mind here, and specifically one must distinguish between events taking place in 1963 (when any alteration was a criminal matter, and an obstruction of justice) from those taking place four (or more) years later, when Life’s 8mm film, its so-called “original”, was “re-captured” in—or “reenlarged to”—35 mm format. The 1967 re-enlargement probably occurred because someone on Life’s staff (e.g., Director of Photography Richard Pollard) contracted with Weitzman’s company, EFX, to do so. • Because Robert Groden went to work at EFX around 1969, he learned of the existence of this 35 mm material, sitting on a shelf or in a cabinet. Weitzman, rightly proud of his accomplishment in enlarging an 8 mm film to 35 mm, [Pig on a Leash (2003); By David S. Lifton] 101 retained several copies, what he called “technicians copies.” As Weitzman said, Groden then “pirated” a print off the premises, and that was how, in the early 1970s, Groden (a) obtained exclusive possession of material that was until that time only available in a vault at Life magazine and ( became an assassination buff. Groden showed this film to many audiences, who were astonished at its breathtaking quality. Groden took much of the credit for work originally done by Weitzman, and as a consequence of his access to an optical printer in New York City, Blakey permitted him to have access to other films then acquired under the auspices of the HSCA. Groden’s so called “film collection”—which indeed ranges far and wide—is undoubtedly related to his employment at the HSCA and his access to original materials, through this government position. The fact that key originals are missing in the aftermath of this affair is troubling, and may or may not be connected to the activities of this “collector.” • It is my personal opinion that no one should have been given access to these priceless and irreplaceable cinematic originals, without a very serious background investigation; moreover, if General Counsel Blakey had done so in the case of Groden, and in particular, if Blakey had simply read what was in Groden’s military file, he would not have been allowed unsupervised access to priceless photo materials. Groden’s coffee table book is essentially a scrapbook demonstrating his unparalleled access to original imagery that, in some cases, is no longer available at the National Archives. Method of Alteration As a practical matter, the Zapruder film could only have been altered optically, i.e., through the use of an Oxberry (or Acme) optical printer, the standard tool of the special effects profession. An optical printer re-photographs the original film, one frame at a time (but chugs along at full camera speed), and the result—if no editing is done—is a rather rapidly created duplicate. In connection with making that dupe, various alterations can be made. A film can be re-framed, to change the image size. Or sections can be omitted. Or frames can be periodically omitted (which would change velocity of the car, for example). Finally, in a particular frame, additional imagery can be added (i.e. a “matte artist” can draw in, or “paint on” additional information). This art would be crucial to understanding any changes in the head wound imagery. In effect, the “matte artist” can “draw on” the picture that is already there, much as a child draws lines on a poster. These are all the standard techniques in the tool box of the special effects person, circa 1963. Films are not altered or edited that way today, when everything is done digitally. But that’s how it was done then. The Basic Problem Although the Zapruder film—after processing—is an “8 mm film,” that is not its configuration when inside the Zapruder camera. At that point, in its original format, it is a 16 mm film, with a “side A” and a “side B,” akin to the red and black portions of an ordinary typewriter ribbon. One side is first exposed; then the film is “turned over” and the other side exposed. The result is processed as a 16 mm film, and then slit, after processing, with the two sides being pasted together—“end to end”—so that a 25 foot roll of this film produces a 50 foot film in 8 mm format. In order for the Z film to have been altered, it would be very [Pig on a Leash (2003); By David S. Lifton] 102 useful if it remained unslit after being processed at Kodak in Dallas. I first discovered that the film was not slit—i.e., that it was unslit—when I saw records connected with the Thompson law suit in the early 1970s. Later, I learned from documents made that weekend, that Dallas Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels ordered that the film, after processing, not be slit; i.e., remain unslit. The chronology and semantics of “alteration” “Alteration” does not mean that the film was altered at Kodak in Dallas, or anything of the kind (and certainly that was not the case). But the actual camera original was in fact processed at Kodak because Zapruder used Kodachrome film, Kodachrome requires a special processing plant, and Dallas was one of only a half dozen such plants in the nation where this was done. Once the Secret Service—or any top level officials of the U.S. Government became aware of what was on this film, and if a decision was made to alter the film (i.e., to create a “politically correct” version of the assassination, for whatever reason)—it was then necessary to obtain the camera original, do that just as soon as possible, and get it into the hands of a competent editor. That original—the unslit 16mm film, after processing by Kodak in Dallas (a film that contained, on “side B”, the actual film record of what had happened)— had to be brought to someone with visual effects expertise. His job: to optically edit the event (per the instructions of some “producer”), and create a substitute (Kodachrome) original, i.e., a substitute 16 mm film with “side A” containing the family sequence, and “side B” containing the altered (i.e., edited) Zapruder film. Is such “early access” possible? Apparently so—certainly as a possibility. The original records of the Kodak lab establish that although the Zapruder film went through as film number 0183, and that—after returning from Jamieson with three Kodachrome A duplicates (which went through the processor as 0185, 0186, and 0187)—there is a missing number in the sequence: 0184. That number is unaccounted for. That means something went through the processor the between the Zapruder original, and the three copies. The matter is not trivial because only four film cans—the genuine original, plus the three copies exposed at Jamieson (and then brought back to Kodak for processing)—are supposed to have existed. An additional copy raises the possibility of substitution—i.e., that early access was obtained to the original and a copy substituted, all this occurring at a rather early hour. Another matter. I have heard those unfamiliar with film processing wonder how it is that the film could be altered, since “there is more than one copy and the copies agree with the original.” This is a weak argument. Only three copies were made—and two were in the custody of the Secret Service. So substitution in the case of those two would be easy. As to Zapruder’s copy, that was given to Life along with the “original” when the initial sale was made on Saturday morning, November 23. Viewed more generally, it cannot be ruled out that, by early evening on Friday, Abe Zapruder knew he was dealing with the Government, immediately after his film had been processed at Kodak, and had been entreated to provide his film, being told it was needed for “national security.” What his wife, Lillian, told me comports with that general theme. In 1971, she said: “My husband gave—gave them the film. He actually gave—he gave it to them.” And: “They handled it beautifully. . .they acted like gentlemen about the whole matter.” [Pig on a Leash (2003); By David S. Lifton] 103 So this is not just about optics; it is also about psychology and appeals to patriotism; and the same applies to LIFE. Someone there—probably someone high on the corporate ladder—has to be “witting” (to use the CIA term) and knowledgeable, in order for any late arriving (and edited) film to be substituted for something purchased from Zapruder. LIFE’s caption text in its very first issue (29 November 63) is odd. Although supposedly possessing a film that clearly shows JFK being slammed to the ear, and publishing 31 frames from that film, it mentions nothing about any head impact being visible, and implies JFK sustained all his wounds when behind the Stemmons sign. Here’s the bottom line: however the “bookkeeping” was handled (or, retrospectively, is analyzed), once a new “original” was created, three corresponding “copies” would have been made from that master and substituted for those 3 “extant” prints made on November 22. I put “extant” in quotes because substitution would have been easy: of the three copies, two were already held by the Secret Service, and the third was at Life. A General Scheme For Fabrication of Original and Substitution of Copies For the Zapruder film Original Items: Forgeries: O (original) O' 3 copies, made from O 3 copies made from O' (duplicates made from O', or from same optical element which produced O') (C-1) (C-1’) (C-2) go to the Secret Service (C-2’) (C-3) retained by Zapruder (C-3’) Transferred to Life on Monday, 11/25/63 Let us now proceed to the next step. The Actual Alteration of the Zapruder film: A Hypothesis [Author’s note: A word about terminology: I use the word “hypothesis” in recognition of the fact that all elements of the Zapruder film alteration have not been proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, in my opinion, enough evidence now exists to raise serious questions about the film being an original, and it is important to understand how alteration would have occurred in order to put that evidence in context.] For the Zapruder film to have been altered, it had to be brought to someone who had expertise in the area of special effects; someone who worked day to day with an optical printer, and who had access to the resources normally employed in special effects photography. Although I myself used to theorize that the film was “altered by the CIA,” I no longer believe that to be so. The CIA has wonderful expertise in the area of analysis—of looking at satellite photographs and interpreting them properly (e.g., in analyzing how many trucks or missiles are on a boat, or on a dock—but that is “analysis” and quite different from the fabrication of a movie film. The CIA doesn’t have a department to do that—it doesn’t have a “special effects” department. On the off chance such skills were called for—say, for example, that it was necessary fabricate a movie for [Pig on a Leash (2003); By David S. Lifton] 104 some covert operation (e.g., to make it appear that a political figure was with a woman other than his wife) —then such work would almost certainly be “subcontracted out” to the appropriate Hollywood facility. There is simply no reason to believe that the CIA maintained “in house facilities” for any such work. So if the Zapruder film was altered, the place to look is Los Angeles, not Langely. And what basically might have occurred is this: a politician (e.g., Johnson) would pick up the phone and entreat some friend in Hollywood— possibly a major studio head—with a talk that would be the equivalent (years later) of “Houston, we’ve got a problem.” The “problem”?: that there was a Castro plot to kill the President, that there had been a security failure (or some such thing) and that crucial facts had to be hidden to avoid a nuclear war. We know from documents and tapes available at the LBJ library that Johnson was talking this way in order to control things politically after Dallas. This “World War III” story would have been used to recruit the appropriate film executive to get the appropriate personnel involved on an emergency basis to edit the film. (And the film would not necessary have to go west; an editor might be flown east). Without meaning to cast aspersions on any particular person, I note that all administrations have close ties with Hollywood, so for someone like a Lyndon Johnson to call up a film mogul and solicit his assistance would not be implausible. However, I would be the first to concede that, as of this writing, we do not have direct evidence of that conversation. Not yet, anyway. What we do have is a deliberately edited record of the radio tapes from Air Force One, the basic record of communications from Johnson to others between the time he arrived at Love Field until the time the plane landed. It should be noted that within a year or two of Dallas, Johnson’s closest aide, Jack Valenti, was basically put in charge of lobbying for the film industry, and has been in that position now for almost four decades). It is highly implausible, if the Z film was altered, that Valenti’s Hollywood involvement is an accident. Would it be possible that Hollywood expertise was brought to bear in this situation, and Valenti knows nothing about it, and his prominence in such a position is purely accidental? Yes, anything is possible. And in pointing out what is obvious—that Valenti ended up in such a powerful position in the film industry—I am certainly not offering that as evidence that he is directly involved in the alteration of any film from Dealey Plaza. Saying that something is “possible” does not mean that it is probable. * * * The technical problem faced by the team doing the alteration would be the rapid speed with which they would be required to work (Life had deadlines), and most important, a rather critical (and yet to them, annoying) technical problem that would have occurred at the end of the process. In whatever format they worked—and for ease of alteration, I would argue it was 35 mm)—at the end of the process, when the final optical negative (or, alternatively, interpositive) was created, the problem would have been to “reduce back down” to the 8mm format, which would then have to be placed on “Side B” of a 16 mm Kodachrome film (which would then have to be processed). Moreover, to pass as a camera original, there would have to be some image between the sprocket holes (as normally there would be, in film shot in Zapruder’s camera). [Pig on a Leash (2003); By David S. Lifton] 105 This problem—that the film contain “material between the sprocket holes”— would only apply to the item (i.e., the putative “camera original”) retained at LIFE and not to either of the Secret Service copies, or the third copy made by Zapruder and retained at LIFE. Returning now to the putative original, which would have to be on Kodachrome, and should also contain “image between the sprocket holes”: This problem—essentially, a formatting issue—could not be ignored, because all the expertise in the world be for naught if this factor was not taken into account and handled properly. The result would not look like a valid original. In For this Kodachrome to appear not to be a dupe, there had to be image— some image—in the sprocket hole area. Because that’s what a “Kodachrome original” looks like. In As noted previously, a film printer normally “masks out” that area. So the problem faced by the special effects team (i.e., the optical forgers) would have been to create a duplicate—one which normally had the sprocket hole area masked out—but which would be made to look like an original by modifying the equipment so as to place some image in the sprocket hole area in this instance. Because of the general appearance of these frames (and particularly, the way the left margin looks, as if there was a piece of magic mending tape running down the edge), I suspect that this problem was solved by making two passes through an optical printer—one for the main part of the film (what we view as the main body of the ordinary “film frame”) and a second pass for the left hand margin (i.e. what would be called the sprocket hole area). This would be somewhat similar (conceptually) to going to Kinko’s and doing a copying job on a book where two passes were involved: first, positioning the page to get the main part of the text, and then pressing the “scan” button once; then repositioning the original, and pressing the scan button a second time; and then finally pressing the “print” button and getting the final product, which is in fact a composite of the two scans. Another possibility is that a contact printer was used in some fashion to solve the “sprocket hole” problem. The principle would be the same—compositing two images—even though the hardware would be different. I do not claim to know exactly how this was done—only that it was indeed accomplished, and that in doing so, in creating a 16 mm Kodachrome with “material between the sprocket holes,” someone overdid it, and “too much” image—much too much image—was put into this area, resulting in almost all the frames on the so-called “original” having image that (as shown on the DVD copy of the original film at the Archives) goes “beyond full flush left”; i.e., in producing a result not possible with Zapruder’s camera. A Word About Future Testing (I) As noted above, this has been presented here as a hypothesis, but the matter need not remain in the realm of abstraction and conjecture. Investigating this matter will not confront us with political considerations that, for all practical purposes, preclude (say) an exhumation of JFK’s body. The Zapruder camera exists. The original film exists. Nothing is buried in a cemetery. Title: Re: DAVID LIFTON'S ''PIG ON A LEASH''.. Pig On A Leash (2003) copy1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Maybe someone can explain what happened at 154-158 and 207-212... In BOTH instances the intersprocket area gets blacked out... In the WCR version of 212... not only is there a tear in 207 just below Rosemary Willis... but there also seems to be a straight razor slice both under this tear and in z212 (or may be artifacts from the copying process?) My question... If the tear is published in the WCR and z207 was damaged to that extent... how do we see a normal z207 and 212 after the fact... with z208-211 re inserted and no evidence of the splice? How was z207 and 212 FIXED? z207 looks pretty badly damaged yet comes out clear and fine later on... Where as 155 remains pretty badly damaged... do you have any idea what happened to those frames for them to come out looking like that? While I am not a Z-film expert, David, I do recall that the original film was cut up by Life at one point, and a few frames lost forever. For a number of years those frames were completely unavailable, Groden, however, was somehow able to obtain a copy of the Secret Servuce's copy of the film, which had been created before Life chopped up the film. So we now know what those frames looked like, except within the sprocket holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 http://www.assassinationweb.com/cranrev.htm the wandering wounds; millicent cranor b. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) If anyone sought to evade the loss of their lives and harassment from the likes of you, neither I nor anyone else can blame them. PAT'S RESPONSE: The "loss of their lives"? What are you talking about? You self-delusion is only comparable to Tink's denial the assassination films are authentic--except HE doesn't actually believe it! The problem for you, I believe, is that you adopt a completely unwarranted antagonistic approach toward the witnesses who were there, the physicians who treated him, and even the experts who have studied the X-rays. If you better understood the conventions of ordinary human discourse, you would interpret their words and actions in accord with the principle of charity (by assuming that they are telling the truth to the best of their ability) and the principle of humanity (by assuming that their motives are the same as those of other human beings), who are not normally disposed to cheat, lie and mislead. If you were only to change your attitude, then I believe you would understand what you have so seriously misrepresented. Otherwise, you will continue to grossly misrepresent their words and actions! PAT'S RESPONSE: Your trying to hide behind this "principle of charity" is beyond hypocritical. You assume it "charitable" to assume the Dealey Plaza witnesses failing to note your presumed "blow-out" on the back of the head, (which is to say all of them), mistaken. You consider it "charitable" to assume the witnesses believing the wound was at or near the back of the head, but claiming the wound was also at or near the top of the head (which is to say most of them) mistaken. You consider it "charitable,"moreover, to assume the witnesses deferring to the accuracy of the autopsy photos (which is to say most of them) cowardly, and scared for their lives. Well, that's not "charity." It's insulting rubbish. When analyzing conflicting accounts of an incident, it is only logical to assume, as I, that some of the witnesses were mistaken, even all the witnesses mistaken. What is not logical, or acceptable, in my opinion, is to pretend the bulk of the witnesses claimed there was a wound low on the back of the head, when virtually NONE of them ever claimed such a thing. THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF CONVERSATIONAL EXCHANGES BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS, AS YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT, GRASP THAT WE SHOULD DO OUR BEST TO MAXIMIZE THE TRUTH CONTENT OF OTHERS AS AN EXPECTATION OF CIVIL DISCOURSE. UNLESS THERE ARE REASONS THAT ARE GOOD ONES TO OVERRIDE THAT PRESUMPTION, WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT THE WITNESSES ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO TELL THE TRUTH. YOUR BINGE OF INDICTING EVERY WITNESS, INCLUDING THE PHYSICIANS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING YOUR BIZARRE THEORY IS INDEFENSIBLE. PAT'S CHALLENGE: You have made it clear you believe Kennedy had two large head wounds: a bone flap near his temple, and a large blow-out low on the back of his head almost entirely below the top level of his ear. FIND US ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS WHO SAW BOTH THESE WOUNDS. Or acknowledge no such witness exists, and that you assume ALL the witnesses you claim support your analysis failed to see one of the wounds. So you are acknowledging that you are so ignorant of the history of harassment and intimidation of assassination witnesses you do not even know the story of how Malcolm Perry, M.D., was emotionally and mentally brutalized for speaking the truth about the wound to the throat, which he described THREE TIMES as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference, which I may have been the first to publish as an appendix to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998)? PAT'S RESPONSE: Yep, as discussed on my webpage, Perry was harassed into pretending he'd never called the wound an entrance. But this is about the head wounds. If the Parkland doctors were pressured into changing their WC testimony re the head wounds it certainly wasn't very successful, as they mostly described it as a large wound on the back of the head. Over the years, moreover, a number of these doctors spoke openly with Lifton, Groden, etc, about their recollections, and yet NONE of them described the TWO separate head wounds you are pushing. NO ONE ELSE HAS GONE TO SUCH EXTRAORDINARY EXTREMES IN ATTEMPTING TO IMPUGN ORDINARY CITIZENS, POLICE OFFICERS AND EXPERIENCED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS BY ATTEMPTING TO DISCREDIT THEIR TESTIMONY BASED UPON MINOR VARIATIONS IN WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT DIFFERENCES IN THEIR LOCATION, DISTRACTIONS, AND POINTS OF VIEW. YOUR ATTEMPTS DO NOT DISCREDIT THEM SO MUCH AS DISPLAY THE PERVERSITY OF YOUR APPROACH IN VIOLATING THE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF CHARITY AND OF HUMANITY. You really ought to get up-to-speed and read about Audrey Bell's response to the depression Malcolm Perry displayed the morning after the assassination. And are you unaware than more than one-hundred (100) witnesses related to the assassination were either murdered or else died mysterious deaths? Whole books have been written about them, including JFK: THE DEAD WITNESSES (1994) by Craig Roberts and John Armstrong. HAVE YOU NEVER READ IT, EITHER? PAT"S RESPONSE: I've read Marrs' mysterious death list and found it full of non-mysteries. I've never read the Roberts book. Very few researchers of any stripe have read that book. It's an incredibly obscure paperback that goes for 69 bucks on Amazon, even though it's less than two hundred pages long. Now, to be clear, I believe a few of these deaths are quite mysterious indeed. But 100 of them? Get real. ONE MORE INDICATION THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I HAVE A COPY OF THE BOOK IN HAND, WHICH IS A PAPERBACK THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1995 BY FIRST TYPHOON PRESS. THE PRICE PRINTED ON THE BACK COVER IS $11.95. I THOUGHT THAT THE DEATHS OF JKF WITNESSES WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE, BUT APPARENTLY I SHOULD HAVE QUALIFIED THAT PRESUMPTION TO THE CLASS OF COMPETENT STUDENTS OF JFK. I HAVE NEVER KNOWN ANYONE SO ARROGANT IN PRESUMING THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR BELIEFS ARE THE BOUNDARIES OF TRUTH. Since Thomas Edward Robinson is not only a "credibly witness" but probably the most credible, PAT"S RESPONSE: This is malarkey. If you believed he was the "most credible" you'd have been at least marginally aware of his 1977 HSCA interview--the only time his words were recorded for posterity, near as I can gather. And you'd have known, without my telling you, that he made no mention of the skull flap he described 15 years later. THE SKULL FLAP WAS CLEARLY INCIDENTAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET WHO HAS MAKE IT INTO THE CENTER OF THE CASE, WHEN THAT IS OBVIOUSLY UNJUSTIFIABLE. THE NEWMANS WITNESSED IT AND YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH IT BUT THAT PRETTY MUCH EXHAUSTS THE UNIVERSE OF THOSE WHO ARE PREOCCUPIED WITH IT. AS I HAVE OBSERVED, THE HSCA FEATURED IT IN ITS DIAGRAMS AND PHOTOGRAPHS, WHICH IN RELATION TO THE BLOW OUT WERE OBVIOUSLY FAKED. AND THOMAS INCLUDED IT IN HIS LATER CONVERSATION. since he of all witnesses had the most time to observe them, I am stunned that you would make that claim. PAT'S RESPONSE: Read the interview, Jim. Robinson did not get a good look at the head wounds during the autopsy, nor did he re-construct the head. He was busy elsewhere. THIS ANSWER, AMONG ALL YOU HAVE ADVANCED, DEMONSTRATES YOUR INCOMPETENCE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON WAS PRESENT ALONG WITH ED REED WHEN HUMES TOOK THE CRANIAL SAW TO JFK'S HEAD AND ENLARGED THE WOUND. BUT HE WAS ALSO THE MORTICIAN WHO PREPARED THE BODY FOR THE FORMAL STATE FUNERAL. HE HAD MORE TIME THAN ANY OTHER WITNESS TO STUDY THE WOUNDS AND FILLED THOSE SHRAPNEL WOUNDS IN HIS FACE WITH WAX. IF ANYONE HAS ANY DOUBTS ABOUT YOUR LACK OF COMPETENCE, THIS IS DEFINITIVE PROOF. Moreover, I have already given you a composite diagram from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) in which Lifton demonstrates the differences between the reports from Parkland (of the blow-out at the back of the head) and from the HSCA (where the skull flap is easily discernible). Are you really so ignorant as to suppose that I would make up "the principle of charity" and "the principle of humanity"? Egad! I thought you were actually an educated man who was capable of conducting research. Apparently, you are so ignorant that you have no idea of the conventions that govern human conversational contexts. Do some research, buster! PAT"S RESPONSE: LOL. I accused you of no such thing. While your fake outrage is amusing on a certain level, it does little to conceal that you--who claim to be so charitable to the witnesses--have long been pushing an interpretation of the wounds in opposition to their recollections. THERE IS NOTHING "FAKE" ABOUT MY OUTRAGE IN HAVING TO SPEND TIME AND EFFORT IN DEALING WITH THE MOST INCOMPETENT STUDENT OF THE DEATH OF JFK I HAVE EVEN ENCOUNTERED. THE PROBLEM WITH YOU--AND THE REASON I EVEN BOTHER--IS THAT OTHERS MAY BE TAKEN IN BY THE AURA OF EXPERTISE THAT EXUDES FROM YOUR EVERY PORE, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE GROSSLY INCOMPETENT, AS YOUR LAST ANSWER DISPLAYED. YOU PROMOTE EXTREMELY INDEFENSIBLE THEORIES WITH THE ZEAL OF A MISSIONARY WITHOUT THE LEAST COMPREHENSION OF YOUR MASSIVE IGNORANCE. I am sick and tired of having to spoon-feed someone who intellectually is still in their diapers! PAT'S RESPONSE: Sticks and stones, etc. Actually, I have a comeback to that one, which some here might enjoy. Here it is... Well, Jim, if I'm still in my diapers, I'm at least young enough where I can look forward to getting out of them. Not so, you... DID YOU MISS THIS ADDENDUM? JHF: AS I COMPOSE THIS, ED SCHULTZ ON MSNBC IS DOING HIS "PSYCHO-TALK" SEGMENT. I FIND THAT COINCIDENCE FITTING. I agree about the PSYCHO-TALK, Jim. Here are a few examples... Your claim: "YOUR BINGE OF INDICTING EVERY WITNESS, INCLUDING THE PHYSICIANS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING YOUR BIZARRE THEORY IS INDEFENSIBLE." The truth: I have not "INDICTED" any of the Dealey Plaza witnesses or Parkland Hospital witnesses. I have merely indicated that SOME of them were mistaken about some of their recollections. You, on the other hand, have proposed that ALL the Dealey Plaza witnesses were negligent in noticing a huge gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head, and ALL the Parkland witnesses negligent in noticing a bone flap by Kennedy's ear. You also propose that MOST of the Parkland witnesses inaccurately recalled the location of the head wound. You also claim Clint Hill and a number of the Parkland witnesses lied or were terribly mistaken when they retreated from or clarified their earlier claims. And then there's Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman, whom, it's quite clear, you believe were party to the conspiracy. In short, it's quite clear that my "theories" are much more charitable to the witnesses than your own. Your claim: "NO ONE ELSE HAS GONE TO SUCH EXTRAORDINARY EXTREMES IN ATTEMPTING TO IMPUGN ORDINARY CITIZENS, POLICE OFFICERS AND EXPERIENCED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS BY ATTEMPTING TO DISCREDIT THEIR TESTIMONY BASED UPON MINOR VARIATIONS IN WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT DIFFERENCES IN THEIR LOCATION, DISTRACTIONS, AND POINTS OF VIEW." The truth: I am the only researcher, of any stripe, to actually research the effect of different points of view on the accuracy of human memory. This research led me to conclude that the Parkland witnesses' viewing of Kennedy while he was in the Trendelenburg position contributed to their thinking his head wound was further back of his head than it is shown in the autopsy photos. You, on the other hand, have conducted no such research, and are simply clutching at straws so you can pretend that EVERY witness to ever identify a location other than that shown in the autopsy photos was in fact describing a location LOW on the back of Kennedy's head. The silliness of your position is driven home, furthermore, when one looks at the photos of the so-called back of the head witnesses in Groden's book. A number of these witnesses are pointing to a location as close if not closer to the location of the wound in the autopsy photos, as the wound location you propose. And yet you choose to count them as back of the head witnesses. Your claim: (regarding my claim Craig Roberts' book on the witness deaths is obscure and over-priced) "ONE MORE INDICATION THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I HAVE A COPY OF THE BOOK IN HAND, WHICH IS A PAPERBACK THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1995 BY FIRST TYPHOON PRESS. THE PRICE PRINTED ON THE BACK COVER IS $11.95. I THOUGHT THAT THE DEATHS OF JKF WITNESSES WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE, BUT APPARENTLY I SHOULD HAVE QUALIFIED THAT PRESUMPTION TO THE CLASS OF COMPETENT STUDENTS OF JFK. The truth: This is yet another example of you... being you. Roberts' book has not been available in book stores since shortly after it was released. It sold poorly. As a result, I, and I suspect most of the members of this forum, have NEVER seen it in a book store, new or used. This leaves the internet as the only avenue through which it can be purchased. It is now a collectible. People charge a lot of money for it. As most of the names on the mysterious death list are well-known, and discussed in Jim Marrs' book Crossfire, I don't consider my purchase of it a high priority. Your claim: "I HAVE NEVER KNOWN ANYONE SO ARROGANT IN PRESUMING THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR BELIEFS ARE THE BOUNDARIES OF TRUTH." The truth: This is the very definition of irony. You figure out why. Your claim: "THE SKULL FLAP WAS CLEARLY INCIDENTAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET WHO HAS MAKE IT INTO THE CENTER OF THE CASE, WHEN THAT IS OBVIOUSLY UNJUSTIFIABLE." The truth: The skull flap is synonymous with the large head wound as observed in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays. It is at the center of ALL the controversy surrounding the head wounds, that is, the Parkland witnesses described a gaping hole on the back of the head while the Bethesda evidence showed a skull flap on top of the head. Your attempt at deflecting its importance is bizarre. What, you think the doctors at Parkland failed to notice a big ole hole by Kennedy's temple? Yeah, sure.... Dollars to doughnuts they'd be far more insulted by that suggestion than my suggestion they were mistaken about the cerebellum... Your claim: (regarding my assertion Tom Robinson failed to see Kennedy's head wounds during the autopsy and was not the mortician to reconstruct Kennedy's head) "THIS ANSWER, AMONG ALL YOU HAVE ADVANCED, DEMONSTRATES YOUR INCOMPETENCE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON WAS PRESENT ALONG WITH ED REED WHEN HUMES TOOK THE CRANIAL SAW TO JFK'S HEAD AND ENLARGED THE WOUND. BUT HE WAS ALSO THE MORTICIAN WHO PREPARED THE BODY FOR THE FORMAL STATE FUNERAL. HE HAD MORE TIME THAN ANY OTHER WITNESS TO STUDY THE WOUNDS AND FILLED THOSE SHRAPNEL WOUNDS IN HIS FACE WITH WAX. IF ANYONE HAS ANY DOUBTS ABOUT YOUR LACK OF COMPETENCE, THIS IS DEFINITIVE PROOF." The truth: repeating nonsense doesn't make it any more true. When one reads Robinson's HSCA interview and correlates it with the notes taken by Doug Horne on a phone call years later, it's clear Robinson failed to see the head wounds during the autopsy itself (he said he was on the left side of the body, with the head off to his right) and that his appraisal of the large wound was based largely on its appearance after reconstruction. The skull's reconstruction was performed by a co-worker. As far as Humes' enlarging the wound, Robinson's recollection was that this was done to remove the brain, meaning he saw Humes pull out the brain after increasing the size of the opening. This is just as Humes claimed, and isn't suspicious at all. While Robinson thought the wound was on the back of the head, this isn't so mysterious either, once one READS his HSCA interview. Apparently, Robinson assumed the wound at the end of the autopsy was in the same place it was in the beginning of the autopsy. And that's not how this stuff works. The president was headed for a public viewing. The hole on the right top of his head had to be sealed. This left a hole on the back of the head, which could then be concealed by a pillow. Your claim: "THERE IS NOTHING "FAKE" ABOUT MY OUTRAGE IN HAVING TO SPEND TIME AND EFFORT IN DEALING WITH THE MOST INCOMPETENT STUDENT OF THE DEATH OF JFK I HAVE EVEN ENCOUNTERED. THE PROBLEM WITH YOU--AND THE REASON I EVEN BOTHER--IS THAT OTHERS MAY BE TAKEN IN BY THE AURA OF EXPERTISE THAT EXUDES FROM YOUR EVERY PORE, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE GROSSLY INCOMPETENT, AS YOUR LAST ANSWER DISPLAYED. YOU PROMOTE EXTREMELY INDEFENSIBLE THEORIES WITH THE ZEAL OF A MISSIONARY WITHOUT THE LEAST COMPREHENSION OF YOUR MASSIVE IGNORANCE." The truth: You have violated the forum's rules on almost every post in this thread, but I have not complained in part because I've grown immune to your insults. It's become apparent to me, and I suspect most everyone else on this forum, that you retreat into insults when challenged, and that the harshness of your insults is directly related to the accuracy of your challenger. And so I thank you for the compliments. Froth on. Edited January 24, 2012 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 The truth: I am the only researcher, of any stripe, to actually research the effect of different points of view on the accuracy of human memory. Pat, you are obviously "uncomfortable" with the multi-inch discrepancy between the head wound location described by many of the witnesses and the head wound location indicated in the x-rays, autopsy photos, and recollections of other witnesses. But you profess to be "comfortable" with the multi-inch discrepancy between the location of the back wound in the BOH autopsy photo and the location indicated by almost all of the witnesses, the clothing defects, and the properly prepared medical evidence. Isn't that a textbook case of "special pleading"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 James Norwood has asked that I post this here, since he has been unable to obtain membership due to the backlog, which I am please to do. His crucial point is that Abraham Zapruder himself was the first to detect the fact that his film was a fake. ************************* Vital testimony included in the Warren Commission exhibits has been ignored by students of the assassination. A close reading of the words of Abraham Zapruder in Volume 7 reveals that he had serious doubts about the authenticity of his own home movie during the testimony given on July 22, 1964. When Zapruder was asked by Wesley Liebeler to identify still images from his own film, the Dallas dress manufacturer was clearly unable to recognize the photos. The individual numbers refer to the various frames of the Zapruder film. Here is the pertinent testimony on p. 573 of Volume 7: “Mr. Liebeler: Yes, specifically, I first call your attention to No. 185. This is No. 185 on the back of it and will you look at the whole book and identify it if you can and tell us that those are the pictures that--that those appear to be the pictures or copies of the pictures that you took from your motion picture camera? Mr. Zapruder: Well, I would say this, they look like--if they were taken from the film I had--these are the ones. I mean, I don't know how to express myself. Mr. Liebeler: Well, they were. Mr. Zapruder: Well, it looks like them--that's when they turned in from Elm Street. Is that it? I'm trying to visualize it. This is taking it from the opposite side of me, is it, where I would have been taking it, because I see this structure--I have been around there and--or these this couldn't be here--where did they get this in there--how did they get this in there, if I was taking the pictures where did they get this in there? That shouldn't be there.” In this riveting testimony, it becomes apparent that Zapruder is completely confused by the images, especially in the early progression of the motorcade. The refrain of Zapruder's testimony is “If I was taking the pictures where did they get this in there?” "How did they get this in there?" “That shouldn’t be there.” In viewing frames 185 and 186, Zapruder is confused because he believed the first bullet to strike the President occurred prior to the limousine disappearing behind the Stemmons freeway sign. Long before the limousine is lost from view in the extant Z-film, Zapruder witnessed and recorded on film a shot to the President's back, and he heard the President speak, as he describes on p. 571: "For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, 'Oh, he got me,' when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw--I don't believe the preisdent is going to make jokes like this." When questioned about frames 185 and 186, Zapruder responded, as follows: "Mr. Liebeler: And they are going down Elm Street now? Mr. Zapruder: "Yes; this is before--this shouldn't be there--the shot wasn't fired, was it? you can't tell from here?...I believe it was closer down here where it happened." Later in the testimony, on p. 575, Zapruder is shown a photo image of frame 249, and he does not recall the rowing motion of the President lifting his hands to his head. Zapruder: "No. 249--I just wonder if it was the motion that he went back with I don't remember seeing that. Of course the pictures would show." In reacting to the photograph of frame 230, Zapruder clearly did not recall the President's hands held so high in the throat area: "It looks to me like he went like this [holding both hands on the left side of his chest" (p. 574). This testimony reveals how the photographs fool Zapruder and instantly force him to formulate a new visual scenario of the assassination. For Zapruder, the photos trump the reality of his memory of the event, instantly overriding his first viewing of the film on the weekend of the assassition. Those images have likewise confounded students of the assassination for nearly fifty years. For months after the tragic event of November 22, Zapruder informs us, he replayed the images of the assassination in his mind ("I have seen it so many times. In fact, I used to have nightmares. The thing would come to me every night." [p. 575]). But when shown the photos by Liebeler, Zapruder was being introduced to a completely new visual record of the assassination. Even a casual reading of Warren Commission hearings reveals that Zapruder recognized at least subconsciously that the photos he was being shown by Wesley Liebeler were NOT replicas of those that Zapruder filmed and viewed in Dallas, prior to selling the film and relinquishing all copies on the weekend of the assassination. This testimony provides critical primary evidence suggesting alteration of the Zapruder film. It is unfortunate that during the hearings, the entire film was not projected in its true medium of a motion picture. In presenting only a set a still photos to Zapruder, he merely became flustered and confused. But it he had seen the film in its entirety with his memory still fresh from the previous November, he might have recognized the full extent of film alteration. Still, the record of the Warren Commision provides an invaluable perspective into the topic of film fakery. In retrospect, the first person to recognize the alteration of the Zapuder film was Abraham Zapruder himself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 well now there something which may, just MAY, prove your photo research is worth something anyway (something which Bill Miller never did, although requested multiple times). Establish a baseline comparisons (side-by-side comparisons) of all Nov 22nd 1963 DP films... full frame comparisons (in motion), off of in-camera originals with declared lineage including signed affidavits. Dude, till then, you and Lammie are just other roving opinions, I could care less if you think your the second coming of Ansel Adams...O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S The Zapruder film as we see it today is flawed. All the whining won't change that. So SHOW US the film (in motion) comparisons! I see they've let you out again for a short while, David. How long for this time? Now, to the point. Why would I want to waste more than minimal time on such scatter brained garbage as Zapruder alteration. You geniuses are making the claim, so, the onus is on you guys to prove your thesis. To date none of you have managed this. It's all hearsay, no hard evidence, ever! When you and your cronies manage to study THE ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM, not a copy, and then get some peer reviewed confirmations of alteration or fakery from some real world acclaimed technical experts, not Costella, then you can put your case forward to this forum or any other. I hope you enjoy the rest of your "Vacation" son. Dunc... If you can't make it in the professional world of media, what makes you think you can make it here? Your interest in JFK assassination film and photos is most illuminating, must be what the put in the water in Scotland (and I ain't talkin' Scotch son!), eh, champ! For the record, I don't preach to stumps, hon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now