Fetzer & Lifton channel Doug Horne: Truly or Falsely?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I was present in Washington, D.C. when one of what you call "the best scientific minds to date" gave a lecture. He was then irretrievably eviscerated by an even better lecture from another scientist, Dr. Donald Thomas.

We must agree to disagree on this, Josiah.

Dr. THomas Vs. UNANIMOUS National Research Council

COMMITTEE ON BALLISTIC ACOUSTICS

Norman F. Ramsey, Chairman

Harvard University

Luis W. Alvarez

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

University of California

Herman Chernoff

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Robert H. Dicke

Princeton University

Jerome I. Elkind

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

John C. Feggeler

Bell Telephone Laboratories

Holmdel, New Jersey

Richard L. Garwin

Thomas J. Watson Research Center

IBM Corporation

and Adjunct Professor of Physics

Columbia University

Paul Horowitz

Harvard University

Alfred Johnson

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

National Laboratory Center

Department of the Treasury

Robert A. Phinney

Princeton University

Charles Rader

Lincoln Laboratory

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

F. Williams Sarles

Trisolar Corporation

Bedford, Massachusetts

Ive read both sides on this issue and, in my opinion, there is no doubt on which side scientific evidence resides.

Josiah Thompson

THe NRC reached 3 conclusions, but only ONE is WARRANTED.

* The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.

* The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.

* Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman.

The only warranted conclusion here is that there is no acoustical evidence of guns fired anywhere in Dealey Plaza. THe Committee simply ASSUMED that 3 shots were fired from the TSBD. THis is BEGGING THE QUESTION, since Blakey brought in the acoustics experts in hopes of PROVING that there were 3 shots from the TSBD. If the NRC experts beleive their own findings, there is no acoustical evidence of gunshots from the grassy knoll OR from the TSBD.

[

[Josiah Thompson]

The man who gave a lecture in Washington on the acoustics was:

Richard L. Garwin

Thomas J. Watson Research Center

IBM Corporation

and Adjunct Professor of Physics

Columbia University

Then, in a following lecture right after, his claims were eviscerated by Don Thomas.

Josiah Thompson

I was present in Washington, D.C. when one of what you call "the best scientific minds to date" gave a lecture. He was then irretrievably eviscerated by an even better lecture from another scientist, Dr. Donald Thomas.

We must agree to disagree on this, Josiah.

Dr. THomas Vs. UNANIMOUS National Research Council

COMMITTEE ON BALLISTIC ACOUSTICS

Norman F. Ramsey, Chairman

Harvard University

Luis W. Alvarez

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

University of California

Herman Chernoff

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Robert H. Dicke

Princeton University

Jerome I. Elkind

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

John C. Feggeler

Bell Telephone Laboratories

Holmdel, New Jersey

Richard L. Garwin

Thomas J. Watson Research Center

IBM Corporation

and Adjunct Professor of Physics

Columbia University

Paul Horowitz

Harvard University

Alfred Johnson

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

National Laboratory Center

Department of the Treasury

Robert A. Phinney

Princeton University

Charles Rader

Lincoln Laboratory

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

F. Williams Sarles

Trisolar Corporation

Bedford, Massachusetts

Ive read both sides on this issue and, in my opinion, there is no doubt on which side scientific evidence resides.

Josiah Thompson

THe NRC reached 3 conclusions, but only ONE is WARRANTED.

* The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.

* The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.

* Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman.

The only warranted conclusion here is that there is no acoustical evidence of guns fired anywhere in Dealey Plaza. THe Committee simply ASSUMED that 3 shots were fired from the TSBD. THis is BEGGING THE QUESTION, since Blakey brought in the acoustics experts in hopes of PROVING that there were 3 shots from the TSBD. If the NRC experts beleive their own findings, there is no acoustical evidence of gunshots from the grassy knoll OR from the TSBD.

[

[Josiah Thompson]

Drone on Professor! If I thought anyone really was paying attention to your persistent attempts to change the subject from the focus of this thread, I might be worried about your continued insults. But I don't think that's the case.

Did I miss something or between the lines of this discussion didn't you admit to publishing a photo that proved just the opposite of what the text said it proved. Oh, dear me, once again I forgot that you're only the editor and have no responsibility for the accuracy of what you publish.

If you're going to continue your extended whine, please do us the favor of not including in your post a long, long thread of earlier posts.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

Your obvious unwillingness to address crucial questions about your "micro-study" in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) is becoming an embarrassment to everyone who has ever believed in you. You like to pose as a "stand-up guy", but this must be the eighth time I have asked for clarification about your early book and the seventh time you have "ducked and run"! That is not the image you have been trying to project for all these years. I guess when it comes down to the bottom line and your fakery has been exposed, you are not going to confront it for the world to see--not even in a protective environment like this one, where you can count on frauds and flakes like Lamson and Colby to rush to your defense whenever you get into trouble. Well, I dare say, you are in deep water now, and every member of this forum can tell that you are not willing to explain yourself. That I can understand, because your conduct in retrospect has been reprehensible and it is apparent why you do not want to confront it. Cute remarks won't cut it, Tink! Your continued evasion of these questions is a disgrace. So where do you stand on these issues today?

I and others here have now asked you a half-dozen or more times to clarify your position today in relation to your position in 1967, when SIX SECONDS was published. I have taken another look and not only is the only sketch of frame 313--which appears on page 107--indecipherable in relation to the "blob", which is the single most striking feature of the film--but I have searched in vain for sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, which are the most important relative to portraying the wound. I have noticed one or two abstract sketches on page 87, which were used in relation to your analysis of the "doubt hit", but they are absent the kinds of details that one would expert of a "micro-study" of the Kennedy assassination. No only do you not focus on this sequence of frames--which one would have naively supposed held the key to the trajectory of the alleged "fatal shot"--but you do not even present them in sufficient detail that your readers could study them!

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a conspiracy to take him out. Yet, in the final paragraph of the text of your book, you observe, "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor when the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. it also shows that the question of Oswald's guilt must remain--nearly four years after the event--still unanswered." This final paragraph, after all, seem to nullify the rest of your book, virtually in its entirety. Have you abandoned the "doubt hit" analysis and even the conclusion that this was a conspiracy?

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne has consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork."" It was their professional judgment that the wound to the back of the head had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in. No matter how much you may have resisted the inference, the weight of the evidence has made it abundantly clear that the extant film is a fabrication, which should have been apparent to you already when you published SIX SECONDS in 1967!

Thus, more than forty years after the event, the specifics of your position about the assassination are still unanswered. As I have observed, it cannot have escaped your notice that the McClelland diagram, which appears on page 107 of your book, shows a blow out to the rear of the head, while the crucial frames of the film--313 through 316--show a blow out to the right-front. Surely, as the author of a "micro study" of the assassination based upon your study of the film, it had to capture your attention. After all, it provides prima facie proof that the film is a fabrication. Yet for all these intervening years, when the authenticity of the film has been in doubt, you have relentlessly attacked research that tends to show it. Well, the time has come for you to address the question and explain how it is possible that you did not relentlessly pursue this question. Because, in the absence of an adequate explanation, there are grounds to infer that your objective in writing this book was not to build a case for conspiracy or even illuminate the evidence but to obfuscate its significance, not only for the film but for the assassination itself.

Jim

[Don Jeffries]

First, let me say that I am honored to be able to discuss this subject with the likes of Josiah Thompson, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and Jack White. I also bear no animosity towards anyone here. Although I have strongly disagreed with J. Raymond Carroll on this forum, he makes his points well and we are on the same side regarding the crucial question of conspiracy. The same goes for Pat Speer; he's done great research himself and I respect his views. This has been a very interesting discussion and lots of good people have contributed to it. All that being said....

The essential question here is- if the Zapruder film is legitimate, why does it show what doesn't appear to have happened (i.e., the massive damage to the right front of JFK's head) and not show what numerous witnesses testified to (limo coming to a stop and swerving to the left, massive blowout to the back of JFK's head)? All these threads, all the debates about what is seen or not seen in which sprocket, are exercises in futility if we don't address the big picture. While there is abundant evidence of conspiracy outside of this area, I don't understand the passionate attachment that so many seem to feel to Zapruder's home movie. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. Numerous people (some almost certainly still unknown to us) were filming that day. The authorities seemed to have little interest in most of the films that were taken (which is a curious attitude for those who are supposedly investigating the assassination of a sitting U.S. President). Zapruder certainly seemed to warrant special attention from the authorities, and he profited tidily from the experience.

How do anti-alterationists account for the medical testimony in Dallas? How do you explain all the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped? Zapruder made a ton of money from his home movie- I think it's fair to ask why so much attention was immediately turned his way, while the mysterious Babushka Lady- with a closer and probably better view of what really transpired during the shooting, was never identified or mentioned by anyone until the early critics noticed her. There are other questions that should be asked; the Zapruder film- in whatever condition- was being developed, viewed and sold for a tidy sum (for the express purpose of suppressing it from the public) within hours of the assassination. I think it's fair to compare what happened to Zapruder vs. what happened to the Babushka Lady. Why did the Secret Service seek out Zapruder's film, but have no interest (or knowledge?) of the potentially even more valuable Babushka Lady's film?

The research conducted by White, Fetzer, Lifton and others have shed new light on all these matters. I think the entire critical community is better off because of their efforts.

[Bernice Moore]

don excellent post thank you..i found this today while searching for another some information on the dealey signs..i noticed the mention of perhaps the secret service may have been looking at another zapruder film.to be off by 45 frames in their re-enactment...i found it interesting ..fwiw...b..

"First Day Evidence and Dealey Plaza"

Michael Parks..

"The SecretService performed a reenactment on 12/5/63 of the shooting of President Kennedy at Dealey Plaza. A survey plat was made for this event by Dallas County Surveyor Robert West and his assistant, Chester Breneman. This survey plat later became Commission Exhibit 585..

This was not the first reenactment performed by the Secret Service in Dealey Plaza. On 11/27/63, they hired the local CBS affiliate KRLD-TV...to film a pre-reenactment, the television crew filmed from Zapruder's pedestal. Within this automobile were two other camera-men ,one filming back toward the Texas School Book Depository while the other films ahead toward the Triple Underpass.

We do not know why the Secret Service needed a pre-reenactment. At the time of this event, they had the Zapruder film and may even had a survey plat made on 11/25/63 for Time/Life by the same survey team of West and Breneman..The Official story during both the Secret Service reenactments was three shots, three hits.This story did not change until the following year with the advent of the Magic Bullet...

Breneman stated that they had a full set of Zaprduer frames from which to work with during the December reenactment. The was furnished by Life Magazine to the Secret Service .These slide were uses to place the shots on

CE 585.....As was pointed out by Chuck Marler in his several informative articles on the topic, shots were placed at Zapruder frames 208, 276, and 358..

These locations were marked on the county survey plat and it became an official document..

It is quite obvious by even the casual observer that the Zapruder film does not support this shot placement.."

The next year to back up the theory of the Magic Bullet, the FBI and the Warren Commission held a thrid reenactment in the Plaza..on 5/24/64.the actors used the Zapruder film, and West and Breneman made another survey plat..CE 882...they move the Head shot to Z 313 from Z 358...It makes you wonder if they had the same film....???

The three yellow curb painted sections within the area where JFK was killed, the last yellow curb marker, is seen after Z 313 but before Z 358.....

" There is no way the Secret Service could have been off 45 frames in their head shot placement unless they viewed a different Zapruder film.."

'' Is there more proof the Stemmons sign was moved? Yes !

Surveyor ( Joe) West stated he later measured his plats and found the sign had been moved by more than ten feet..

Even assassination witness and Dealey Plaza groundskeeper ,Emmett Hudson testified the signs in the Plaza had been moved ( shortly ?) after 11/22/63...He also said the head shot was almost in front of where he stood.

This would more agree with the Secret Service's Z 358 shot than the FBI's Z 313...It appears the sign was moved to the FBI's position to match the altered sign in the Zapruder film...

All the Zapruder frames seen were chosen because of the closeness to the reenactment .."...

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:

Shortcut to: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=34

b..

[David G. Healy]

"BRAVO Ray... and your conclusion does not make not one wit of difference if I think, or, you think the Z-film is altered. The Z-film debate is and for recent years a canard -- fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls... A now needless debate that stymies progress..."

I couldn't agree with you more, David. All of this terrain has been covered over and over again while the interesting work on the Kennedy assassination stands apart from it. It is becoming more and more clear that there is a kind of exact correspondence between the acoustics map of the assassination and the map of the assassination provided by the Zapruder film. A sound impulse on the Dallas police channel is matched by something happening on the Zapruder film... some sign of a bullet hit in the car or some sign of a shot's sound making Zapruder jerk the camera (and, in many cases, both). The overall picture is of five shots in all, one from the stockade fence, the rest from the north end of Elm Street. From what I've been reading, this picture of what happened in Dealey Plaza is edging ever closer to proof.

So let's ask this question: If it can be proven that the extant Zapruder film matches in content the sound impulses appearing on the Dallas police dictabelt, doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film? Let's also ask a second question: No discrepancy between the extant Zapruder film and any other film or photo taken in Dealey Plaza has ever been shown. Doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film?

The endless debate about Z-film authenticity is not just (as you put it) "fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls." Rather it distracts from productive research that will use the Zapruder film as an incalculably important resource in proving that a shot was fired from the right front of the limousine.

It's a pleasure to agree with you about something, David.

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Thompson..

This is all pretty simple, in fact, REAL simple from my perspective at least.

Simply put, every bone in my body says the Z-film is a fabrication. That was was proved (to me at least) during the 2003 Univ. of Minn. symposium. So much in fact, it's what led Rollie Zavada to get in touch with Jim Fetzer in order to get in-touch with me -- which he did. We spoke while he was here at a executive committee SMPTE meeting at Lake Tahoe. Rollie then he jetted off to Florida to speak with Ray Fielding discussing film composite possibilities related to the Zapruder film. Ray Fielding did not help Rollie with his new and improved Zapruder film/camera investigation-report, soon to be published (note: the original which Doug Horne played a role). As you and a few others here know, it never was published, I suspect the 6th floor had something to do with that, however, it makes no difference who or the why's, it wasn't published. It wasn't what past or present author-researchers or museum PR artists had to say, you or Gary Mack for that matter, Fielding didn't endorse what Rollie was looking for in hs revised report... in a nut shell, that it was impossible to alter the Z-film... When I corresponded with Ray Fielding he was very specific, he did NOT want to get involved in the matter. So to me Ray Fielding's refusal sealed the case of Z-film alteration.... the argument wasn't worth going on the record in Zavada's new report....

So, my position is simple: until the lone nut'/SBT's find someone, ANYONE with film compositing expertise that will counter what the authors put forth in TGZFH, debating Z-film alteration issue(s) is simply beating a dead horse..... The lone nut/SBT adherents best play (only play left) is the holding option.... led by Gary, Lampoon Lamson and the remaining gang of 8...

Ray Carroll (and many others) has it right, shooters from the front (2-mine IMHO) AND the rear (2-mine IMHO)... Kennedy was hit at least 4 times (mine IMHO)... the medical evidence trumps ALL...

Gary Mack once told me... "the original in-camera Zapruder Film will never, EVER see the inside of a courtroom, PERIOD! I believe that, but for a different reason, it (the original film) simply no longer exists...

The Z-film debate has kept the CT research community up-front the last 6-7 years, we've kept the Single Bullet Theorists not only busy, but driving them crazy.... Let's finish the job! We no longer need debate the Z-film... it's time to pull it all together a focus squarely on the medical evidence...

So let's make Bugliosi and Company along with Tom Hanks and HBO do a little rewrite work, they've got deep pockets...

David

There are enormous contradictions between the medical evidence and what we find in the film, which seem to have passed you by. I have no idea what you are about, but be so kind as to explain the "blob" of brains bulging forward, the missing right-front cranial mass from the x-rays,.......

At the 2003 Duquesne conference I asked the forensic pathology panel if they agreed that only a new autopsy would resolve all the conflicts in the medical evidence, and none of these distinguished experts disagreed. The original autopsy was performed by amateurs, and until a new autopsy is performed, I am unable to give definitive answers on the wounds to JFK's body. We do know however that an entry wound in JFK's throat was noted at parkland hospital, and we also know that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was driven backward by a bullet in the brain, apparently fired from the right front.

There have been various efforts to rationalize the Head Snap and make it seem consistent with a shot from behind, but none of these efforts (jet effect, neuro) are remotely persuasive, and the fact remains that Malcolm Perry was quite certain that the throat wound was an entry. So my view for now is that JFK was shot twice from the front, and that view may be modified depending on the findings of a new autopsy or other unassailable source.

The Zapruder film is entirely consistent with JFK being struck twice from the front, and I submit that trying to have the Z-film declared a fake does nothing to resolve the problems with the autopsy.

BRAVO Ray... and your conclusion does not make not one wit of difference if I think, or, you think the Z-film is altered. The Z-film debate is and for recent years a canard -- fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls... A now needless debate that stymies progress...

[David Lifton]

Thanks for your support.

In particular, I appreciate your succinct summation of the key reasons why I believe the Z film has been altered; now quoting:

QUOTE I think the strongest argument for film alteration is the overwhelming eyewitness testimony, especially the unanimous observations of the medical personnel in Dallas. What you see on the Zapruder film strongly contradicts all those witnesses who described the limousine stopping (and even swerving to the left), as well as the doctors and nurses who all stated there was a massive blowout to the back of the head. None described seeing the damage to the right front, which is so prominent in the Zapruder film. UNQUOTE

An unaltered film would have provided the truth about how the car stopped--even if briefly--during the shooting. It would have provided photographic evidence corroborating the Dallas doctors observations re the rear head wound blowout; and, finally, it would have established that there was no massive wound (or "blob") at the front of the head.

While ultimately, the debate about whether the film was altered may come down a matter of optics, what you are citing are the key reasons why an "eraser" was applied to this film, and why certain facts were indeed changed.

DSL

[Pat Speer]

First, let me say that I am honored to be able to discuss this subject with the likes of Josiah Thompson, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and Jack White. I also bear no animosity towards anyone here. Although I have strongly disagreed with J. Raymond Carroll on this forum, he makes his points well and we are on the same side regarding the crucial question of conspiracy. The same goes for Pat Speer; he's done great research himself and I respect his views. This has been a very interesting discussion and lots of good people have contributed to it. All that being said....

The essential question here is- if the Zapruder film is legitimate, why does it show what doesn't appear to have happened (i.e., the massive damage to the right front of JFK's head) and not show what numerous witnesses testified to (limo coming to a stop and swerving to the left, massive blowout to the back of JFK's head)? All these threads, all the debates about what is seen or not seen in which sprocket, are exercises in futility if we don't address the big picture. While there is abundant evidence of conspiracy outside of this area, I don't understand the passionate attachment that so many seem to feel to Zapruder's home movie. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. Numerous people (some almost certainly still unknown to us) were filming that day. The authorities seemed to have little interest in most of the films that were taken (which is a curious attitude for those who are supposedly investigating the assassination of a sitting U.S. President). Zapruder certainly seemed to warrant special attention from the authorities, and he profited tidily from the experience.

How do anti-alterationists account for the medical testimony in Dallas? How do you explain all the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped? Zapruder made a ton of money from his home movie- I think it's fair to ask why so much attention was immediately turned his way, while the mysterious Babushka Lady- with a closer and probably better view of what really transpired during the shooting, was never identified or mentioned by anyone until the early critics noticed her. There are other questions that should be asked; the Zapruder film- in whatever condition- was being developed, viewed and sold for a tidy sum (for the express purpose of suppressing it from the public) within hours of the assassination. I think it's fair to compare what happened to Zapruder vs. what happened to the Babushka Lady. Why did the Secret Service seek out Zapruder's film, but have no interest (or knowledge?) of the potentially even more valuable Babushka Lady's film?

The research conducted by White, Fetzer, Lifton and others have shed new light on all these matters. I think the entire critical community is better off because of their efforts.

Don, in chapter 19 at patspeer.com, I discuss in excruciating detail why I believe the Parkland doctors were wrong about the wound location, even to the extent of publishing and discussing all their earliest statements.

The key is that there are flaws in human cognition, whereby we routinely get confused by certain images and events. We are in fact terrible at perceiving relative distances on rotated objects, particularly human faces. This is demonstrated here:

So what bearing does this have on the case, you might ask? It's simple. Kennedy was not only laying flat on his back when most everyone at Parkland saw him, he was laying on his back with his feet up in the air.

So, in short, I think the rotation of Kennedy on the stretcher caused some of those viewing him to misinterpret the location of his head wound, and their recollections colored those of their colleagues.

It is significant, IMO, that none of these witnesses noted an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head, even though they were looking at his face. No, they just saw one large wound. The same large wound, one should assume, that was observed by William Newman and Abraham Zapruder in Dealey Plaza, and described on TV before the Parkland doctors had written a word.

So where did Newman and Zapruder place the wound?

Exactly where it is on the autopsy photos!

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't understand the passionate attachment that so many seem to feel to Zapruder's home movie.

Arguably the two most important research works of the Internet Age are

Zapruder film analyses:

Gil Jesus' analysis: "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

And the other is Don Roberdeau's Rosemary Willis studies, which, when combined

with her statements to the HSCA, strongly point to Black Dog Man as a shooter.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

I've had amicable discussions with Jack White, Paul Rigby, and John Costella and

not one of these gentlemen have given me any reason to believe that Z186 thru Z255

(which encompasses three crucial photographs: Betzner 3, Willis 5, and Altgens 6)

is anything other than an accurate recording of those 4 seconds in Dealey Plaza.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Frankly, I cannot understand your analogy with Lundberg (not "Lumberg"), who was covering up in relation to the medical evidence, while the research group that I organized in 1992--including David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., Bob Livingston, M.D., Charles Crenshaw, M.D., Jack White, and John P. Costella, Ph.D.--has been taking it and Zapruder film fakery apart, with considerable success (though I infer that you, like Josiah Thompson, don't actually read the research of those with whom you happen to disagree). So that is a bizarre remark. Moreover, the kinds of technical and scientific competence they represent is indispensable in this case, because many of the issues involved in separating authentic from inauthentic evidence involve technical, scientific questions. Now David has a Ph.D. in physics, an M.D., and is board certified in radiation oncology, which is the treatment of cancer using X-ray therapy, and is an expert on the interpretation of X-rays. He has visited the National Archives nine times and has examined the autopsy materials that are archived there. His studies have been published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I only mention this because he is obviously eminently qualified for research of this kind. When I described you as a "rank amateur", therefore, I could be mistaken, if you have suitable qualifications for research of this kind. So please tell me. I am very curious how you got into the study of the X-rays and the basis for your differences with David W. Mantik. Thanks.

So here we are back at square one, with you once again running from the evidence before you. I demonstrate why I believe Mantik is wrong and you counter with "what are your credentials", and then claim my refusal to buy your claims comes from my not reading your books, or studying the medical evidence, when the exact opposite is true. It is you who have never read my work, or seen my videos. If you had, you would see that I have studied the medical evidence in far more detail than anyone you are used to arguing against, and have made a number of discoveries that you otherwise might find significant, e.g. that Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, that the HSCA trajectory panel shrunk Kennedy's skull to make the head shot point back to the sniper's nest, etc.

As far as Mantik, while he is not near the "ultimate authority" on X-Rays you purport him to be, I respect him and value his contributions. I just think that he, along with most everyone else, is wrong on several key issues. It bears repeating that I discovered that the white patch on the lateral X-ray was the wing of bone and that the "6.5 mm fragment" on the A-P X-ray was behind the right eye while trying to demonstrate Mantik's findings on PowerPoint slides. I apologize for undermining his findings, if that makes you feel any better.

In this thread I have claimed that

1) the white patch on the lateral X-Ray corresponds to the location of the wing of bone in the right lateral autopsy photo (which you apparently believe to be fake).

2) the largest fragment on the A-P X-ray aligns perfectly with a fragment in the location from which the autopsy doctors claimed they removed the largest fragment.

3) there is a bullet hole in the back of the head photo (which you believe to be fake) that corresponds to the location of a bullet wound on the back of the head in the open cranium autopsy photo.

And yet you have failed to counter these claims beyond claiming the autopsy photos used to demonstrate these claims are fake, and that I am not as qualified as Dr. Mantik to judge X-rays. This suggests that you do indeed see the points I have been making, but find them meaningless in light of what you think you already know.

I thank you for your consideration.

[Bernice Moore]

First, let me say that I am honored to be able to discuss this subject with the likes of Josiah Thompson, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and Jack White. I also bear no animosity towards anyone here. Although I have strongly disagreed with J. Raymond Carroll on this forum, he makes his points well and we are on the same side regarding the crucial question of conspiracy. The same goes for Pat Speer; he's done great research himself and I respect his views. This has been a very interesting discussion and lots of good people have contributed to it. All that being said....

The essential question here is- if the Zapruder film is legitimate, why does it show what doesn't appear to have happened (i.e., the massive damage to the right front of JFK's head) and not show what numerous witnesses testified to (limo coming to a stop and swerving to the left, massive blowout to the back of JFK's head)? All these threads, all the debates about what is seen or not seen in which sprocket, are exercises in futility if we don't address the big picture. While there is abundant evidence of conspiracy outside of this area, I don't understand the passionate attachment that so many seem to feel to Zapruder's home movie. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. Numerous people (some almost certainly still unknown to us) were filming that day. The authorities seemed to have little interest in most of the films that were taken (which is a curious attitude for those who are supposedly investigating the assassination of a sitting U.S. President). Zapruder certainly seemed to warrant special attention from the authorities, and he profited tidily from the experience.

How do anti-alterationists account for the medical testimony in Dallas? How do you explain all the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped? Zapruder made a ton of money from his home movie- I think it's fair to ask why so much attention was immediately turned his way, while the mysterious Babushka Lady- with a closer and probably better view of what really transpired during the shooting, was never identified or mentioned by anyone until the early critics noticed her. There are other questions that should be asked; the Zapruder film- in whatever condition- was being developed, viewed and sold for a tidy sum (for the express purpose of suppressing it from the public) within hours of the assassination. I think it's fair to compare what happened to Zapruder vs. what happened to the Babushka Lady. Why did the Secret Service seek out Zapruder's film, but have no interest (or knowledge?) of the potentially even more valuable Babushka Lady's film?

The research conducted by White, Fetzer, Lifton and others have shed new light on all these matters. I think the entire critical community is better off because of their efforts.

Don, in chapter 19 at patspeer.com, I discuss in excruciating detail why I believe the Parkland doctors were wrong about the wound location, even to the extent of publishing and discussing all their earliest statements.

The key is that there are flaws in human cognition, whereby we routinely get confused by certain images and events. We are in fact terrible at perceiving relative distances on rotated objects, particularly human faces. This is demonstrated here:

So what bearing does this have on the case, you might ask? It's simple. Kennedy was not only laying flat on his back when most everyone at Parkland saw him, he was laying on his back with his feet up in the air.

So, in short, I think the rotation of Kennedy on the stretcher caused some of those viewing him to misinterpret the location of his head wound, and their recollections colored those of their colleagues.

It is significant, IMO, that none of these witnesses noted an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head, even though they were looking at his face. No, they just saw one large wound. The same large wound, one should assume, that was observed by William Newman and Abraham Zapruder in Dealey Plaza, and described on TV before the Parkland doctors had written a word.

So where did Newman and Zapruder place the wound?

Exactly where it is on the autopsy photos!

hi pat..i think you are somewhat cherry picking if you want to compare what the witnesses stated the where. you think or the back of the head blow out just for one check the willis family what each stated the back of the head blew out..also others imo you cannot use some and leave the others out but that is m/o..hope you have a good new year...b

Edited December 31, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[David Lifton]

I'm sorry, Lamson, but I don't buy your argument.

I Googled "edge fog" and here's the definition that came up:

QUOTE:

(graphic arts) The light fog which appears along the edge of roll film, generally from exposure during loading or unloading. UNQUOTE

And you're trying to sell me on the notion that Clint Hill appears beyond the left edge of the sprocket hole because of "edge fog". Really, you've got to be kidding.

I think you're engaging in irrelevant techno-babble.

As for your "normal sample variation," I don't buy that either.

If I'm stopped by an officer for speeding, and he's using radar, I'd don't think I could escape a ticket by arguing that his radar set was off because of "normal sample variation"--and that the problem perhaps was with Motorola's manufacturing processes, and not that my car was going too fast. And that's basically how I feel about your line of reasoning.

Just take a look at the Costella Combined Edit. The frames repeatedly go BEYOND "full flesh left" (I just happened to choose that sequence because Clint Hill was out there on the edge.)

Do you think the entire length of the Zapruder film is polluted with "edge fog"? (And no one noticed this before, but you?)

I don't think so. Rather, I think "edge fog" and "normal sample variation" is circumstantial evidence of someone invoking high falutin terminology of dubious relevance and little validity to address the serious problem of Z film forgery.

Happy New Year.

DSL

12/31/09

Los Angeles, CA 5:05 AM

To Craig Lamson:

You are introducing terminology I never heard of—"edge fog."

efore entering this arena and proposing to discuss this matter, please define your terms, or at least stick to known vocabulary.

What the heck is "edge fog"—other than your own linguistic invention to account for a serious optical discrepancy, one that demands explanation, and which your post does not in fact explain.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before getting involved into a subject area such as the basic photographic process. I made a post just before this one that will school you on the standard photogrpahic term edge fog.

Let me address your post in detail:

You write: "David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rollie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z?"

DSL Response: I can tell (and anyone can tell) by just looking at it. Very clearly and very obviously, it does not extend beyond the very well defined left edge.

No you can't. You can't see anything beyond the the right most edge of the edge fog. You have ZERO clue what image area might have been destroyed by the errant light exposure.

By way of background: Josiah Thompson has done me –and every other person who is studying this matter closely (and certainly anyone who believes in Z film alteration) a very big favor. He has supplied the "rollie red truck" frames at a level of clarity I have never before seen.

Certainly, I have never before seen what I am now calling the "Rollie Red Truck" sequence at this level of clarity—and so I must direct this question to Thompson: does this exhibit which you included in your original post on this matter (and which has precipitated this debate) come from Zavada himself? Did he go back to his original materials—the actual film he took in Dealey Plaza, and provide you with these pictures? Or is it the case that frames of this clarity are in the actual Zavada report?

Whichever is the case, these frames, it seems to me (and unless one is going to invent one's own unique terminology, as Lamson has done here) prove important evidence that the left margin of the frame of a Zapruder-type camera does NOT permit image to appear beyond the left-most edge of the frame—in start contrast to what we see in the Zapruder film frames that supposedly come from a "camera original" film.

Do you even have the basic understanding of how the circle of illumination of a lens works? If you can't get your hands on the Z camera ( why give it to people without a clue and a silly argument) get 10 other samples and test them, see what happens instead if sitting around writing about things it appears you have scant knowlege of.

As for you, Craig Lamson: Inventing your own terminology, calling the argument "silly," and invoking "normal sample variation" does not answer, much less address the fundamental question. To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?

The argument is silly and weak. Normal sample variation is rampant in the professional lenses today, when you would think it should have gone away with better manufacturing processes. The sad fact is that wiht the current crop of very high resloutoin digital cameras and 100% pixel peeping in Photoshop many photographers have had to resort to buying many copies of the same lens, testing them and only keeping the best one, simply because they vary so much from copy to copy. Even then it is not uncommon for that lens to be shipped back to the manufacturer for even further adjustment.

This happens with 3-4 thousand dollar lenses, and you want us to believe cameras made in the early 60's don't have normal sample variation? Please! All it would take is for one camera to limit the maximum zoom to 26.5mm and for the next camera to limit maximum zoom to 27.5mm to change the size of he circle of illumination. This is a mechanical devive built by humans in the early 60's. It is noit even a high end product. You think theyumachined this thing on a CNC machine?

You say this : "To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?

You clearly have not addressed either of these two points in detail, you have simply waved your hands and deemed them true.

On the first, you can't know the the "camera mechanism" has limited the penetration to a "clearly defined edge" because you can't even see the edge, because of the edge fog.

The second is just a wild claim based on nothing, simply because you don't have a clue what you are looking at or how the system works.

DSL

1:55 PM; PST

Los Angeles, CA.

[Dean Hagerman]

Dean,

Did you hear about the hippy who was drowning at sea. His friend on the beach asked the rescue service why they could not rescue him, and the reply was.

" He's too far out man"

The same applies to your line....It's too far out man.

[Dean Hagerman]

Arguably the two most important research works of the Internet Age are

Zapruder film analyses:

Gil Jesus' analysis: "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

You have got to be kidding me

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when watching "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

[Craig Lamson]

I'm sorry, Lamson, but I don't buy your argument.

I Googled "edge fog" and here's the definition that came up:

QUOTE:

(graphic arts) The light fog which appears along the edge of roll film, generally from exposure during loading or unloading. UNQUOTE

And you're trying to sell me on the notion that Clint Hill appears beyond the left edge of the sprocket hole because of "edge fog". Really, you've got to be kidding.

Where did you get your degree in critical thinking? From Fetzer?

If you could read you would know I am telling you your claim that the red truck frames have a mechanical hard edge stop at the left edge of the intersprocket area is bogus because you can't see what might have been there, because it was destroyed by EDGE FOG! Now is that clear enough or do you want me to draw you double pictures?

I think you're engaging in irrelevant techno-babble.

Think what you will but any honest, educated observer can note by your posts that you don't know squat about this subject matter.

As for your "normal sample variation," I don't buy that either.

If I'm stopped by an officer for speeding, and he's using radar, I'd don't think I could escape a ticket by arguing that his radar set was off because of "normal sample variation"--and that the problem perhaps was with Motorola's manufacturing processes, and not that my car was going too fast. And that's basically how I feel about your line of reasoning.

He may still give you a ticket but that in no way eliminates the possibility that your cars speedo exhibits normal sample variation. Common sample variation exists. That you want to ignore this is really quite telling.

Just take a look at the Costella Combined Edit. The frames repeatedly go BEYOND "full flesh left" (I just happened to choose that sequence because Clint Hill was out there on the edge.)

Do you think the entire length of the Zapruder film is polluted with "edge fog"? (And no one noticed this before, but you?)

There is no edge fog on the zfilm in that area and I never claimed there was.

I don't think so. Rather, I think "edge fog" and "normal sample variation" is circumstantial evidence of someone invoking high falutin terminology of dubious relevance and little validity to address the serious problem of Z film forgery.

I'm sure you don't think so, in fact I'm starting to wonder about your thinking process in total.

Interestingly your invoking the Clint Hill frame was a stroke of genius. Lets review it shall we?

First lets take the frame you selected from the Costella edit, 244, and roughly remove the pin cushion distortion correction applied by Costella and strike a line at the far right edge of formed image.

Can you see the image has a hrad edged stop, as if something mechanical prohibited the image from extending further. Wow!

Next lets see what the internals of the Zapruder camera looked like in the film gate area

Wow there is somthing that can limit the image width..the aperture plate! The drawing above shows the nominal size. Given you are the guy that says things can be measured a the margins (good science and all of that) why don't you do just that and then tell us if it is impossible for the Zapruder camera to form images as far left as we see in the z film. Now I know this goes against the grain of your current handwaving argument, but you do say you believe in good science, so why not prove it?

Oh one final point, which I might add is yet another one of those basic photographic principles people seem to have such a hard time with.....from the same report as above...

Get back to us when you have a real argument, and not some silly handwaving.

Happy New Year.

DSL

12/31/09

Los Angeles, CA 5:05 AM

To Craig Lamson:

You are introducing terminology I never heard of—"edge fog."

efore entering this arena and proposing to discuss this matter, please define your terms, or at least stick to known vocabulary.

What the heck is "edge fog"—other than your own linguistic invention to account for a serious optical discrepancy, one that demands explanation, and which your post does not in fact explain.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before getting involved into a subject area such as the basic photographic process. I made a post just before this one that will school you on the standard photogrpahic term edge fog.

Let me address your post in detail:

You write: "David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rollie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z?"

DSL Response: I can tell (and anyone can tell) by just looking at it. Very clearly and very obviously, it does not extend beyond the very well defined left edge.

No you can't. You can't see anything beyond the the right most edge of the edge fog. You have ZERO clue what image area might have been destroyed by the errant light exposure.

By way of background: Josiah Thompson has done me –and every other person who is studying this matter closely (and certainly anyone who believes in Z film alteration) a very big favor. He has supplied the "rollie red truck" frames at a level of clarity I have never before seen.

Certainly, I have never before seen what I am now calling the "Rollie Red Truck" sequence at this level of clarity—and so I must direct this question to Thompson: does this exhibit which you included in your original post on this matter (and which has precipitated this debate) come from Zavada himself? Did he go back to his original materials—the actual film he took in Dealey Plaza, and provide you with these pictures? Or is it the case that frames of this clarity are in the actual Zavada report?

Whichever is the case, these frames, it seems to me (and unless one is going to invent one's own unique terminology, as Lamson has done here) prove important evidence that the left margin of the frame of a Zapruder-type camera does NOT permit image to appear beyond the left-most edge of the frame—in start contrast to what we see in the Zapruder film frames that supposedly come from a "camera original" film.

Do you even have the basic understanding of how the circle of illumination of a lens works? If you can't get your hands on the Z camera ( why give it to people without a clue and a silly argument) get 10 other samples and test them, see what happens instead if sitting around writing about things it appears you have scant knowlege of.

As for you, Craig Lamson: Inventing your own terminology, calling the argument "silly," and invoking "normal sample variation" does not answer, much less address the fundamental question. To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?

The argument is silly and weak. Normal sample variation is rampant in the professional lenses today, when you would think it should have gone away with better manufacturing processes. The sad fact is that wiht the current crop of very high resloutoin digital cameras and 100% pixel peeping in Photoshop many photographers have had to resort to buying many copies of the same lens, testing them and only keeping the best one, simply because they vary so much from copy to copy. Even then it is not uncommon for that lens to be shipped back to the manufacturer for even further adjustment.

This happens with 3-4 thousand dollar lenses, and you want us to believe cameras made in the early 60's don't have normal sample variation? Please! All it would take is for one camera to limit the maximum zoom to 26.5mm and for the next camera to limit maximum zoom to 27.5mm to change the size of he circle of illumination. This is a mechanical devive built by humans in the early 60's. It is noit even a high end product. You think theyumachined this thing on a CNC machine?

You say this : "To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?

You clearly have not addressed either of these two points in detail, you have simply waved your hands and deemed them true.

On the first, you can't know the the "camera mechanism" has limited the penetration to a "clearly defined edge" because you can't even see the edge, because of the edge fog.

The second is just a wild claim based on nothing, simply because you don't have a clue what you are looking at or how the system works.

DSL

1:55 PM; PST

Los Angeles, CA.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Craig Lamson