Craig Lamson
-
Posts
5,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Craig Lamson
-
-
Robin,
Excellent! The imposition over the Groden image a the top doesn't work, because that image is faked.
I know that you and others don't like to admit that any of these images are fake, but compare these two
with the two below. Is there any doubt that both sets cannot both be authentic but could both be fake?
The discrepancy was so great that, when the ARRB deposed Humes, he was asked whether the subject
had been given a shampoo and a haircut during autopsy, since the images are so blatantly inconsistent.
He replied, "No, no, no, no, no, . . . ." (See transcript in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), Appendix G.)
Your second imposition is exactly right and represents your work at its best! I also reveals the complete
indefensibility of the claim that the wound was on the right side of the head, where we can see the skull
flap extending to the right in the right-hand image. Here the blow-out has been blatantly covered up.
The image on the left is important, not only as proof that the throat wound was greatly enlarged to make
it resemble what it might have looked like had it actually been a wound of exit but for the eyes. Charles
Crenshaw closed his eyes just before the body was wrapped and placed in the casket. This is strange.
You don't think all the photos you posted show the exact same thing? ARE YOU BLIND?
-
We have proven the film is a fake.
Only in your very vivid imagination.
-
We all know why you are here, Lamson. Those who are with you
are with you for the same reasons. That is simply a fact of life.
Nice ( but failed) attempt at a dodge jimmy. So why am I here again?
-
The point, of course, is that photos are easy to fake: we have lots
of fake autopsy photos, including the one we have been discussing,
since the massive hole in the back of the head has been covered up.
Here is another diagram from Charles Crenshaw of that wound, too:
Of course, Lamson will discount any evidence that undermines his attempts to preserve
something close to THE WARREN REPORT (1964), in spite of all we know that refutes it.
But for Pat Speer to doubt that photos (or X-rays or films) have been faked is a stunning
indication of a complete absence of understanding of the medical evidence in this case.
You can't just claim the photos are fake (unless you are intellectually dishonest) you actually have to PROVE the photos are fake.
Good luck with that. Give Cinque and Hooke a call. LOL!
-
Actually, it was the puppet, "Lambchop", Jackie was given as Jack White found before his death.
So Unger is wrong and Lamson is not even right about eyewitnesses. A Harvard study has shown
that, when what is being viewing is salient (or important), witnesses are 98% accurate and 98%
complete. And how could it be otherwise? A species so dependent upon processing information
visually is going to have difficulty evolving if the information it obtains visually is not highly reliable.
Sure jimmy...the witnesses that support you are correct. So ALL the witnesses in this case are 98 percent accurate and 98 percent complete. Or is it just the ones YOU want to support whatever silly claim you have cooked up?
-
Everyone should read for themselves the reports of Jesse Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby
Hargis, Marrion Baker and James Chaney to see if Lamson's dismissal is remotely justified. [Removed by moderator because it states that another poster is lying, which is against Forum Rules.] .
Yes, read them and see where Fetzer and his cohorts make huge ASSUMPTIONS instead of accurately reading the words.
Please show us where the other quotes tell us Chaney was going PAST JFK's Limo...
-
This is hilarious.
Craig Lamson and Jim Fetzer agree: the Dealey Plaza photos show 6+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the bottom of JFK's jacket collar without pushing up on JFK's jacket collar.
David Von Pein and Cliff Varnell agree: the Weaver photo on the corner of Main and Houston shows no significant elevation of the jacket, and subsequently the jacket collar dropped on Houston St.
Who'da thunk it?
Von Pein fails photo 101 just like Cliff Varnell.
Done in by the sun.
-
Cliff,
Take those bunching photos: whether they are authentic or not
DOESN'T EVEN MATTER. My inference has been that there was
no bunching. But so what? If they were, then it's almost perverse
that they show the bullet holes where they correspond with the
rest of the evidence. If they weren't, then it is not perverse but
they still show the bullet holes where they correspond with the
rest of the evidence. Lamson's argument is pointless either way.
So I am certainly willing to grant that either those photographs
are authentic or they are not, because either way doesn't matter!
And yet since there IS a fold, the rest of your so called evidence fails.
And FAIL it does.
-
And yet you and Lamson are saying that the Croft photo shows there was 3+ inches of jacket and 3+ inches of shirt fabric bunched up entirely above the bottom of the jacket collar without pushing up on the jacket collar itself?
This is the operative definition of idiotic.
Yep. That's exactly what it shows. You are done cliff. Maybe you should heed your own "oversold" words.
CV" 2-23-13
"I've only read a few posts. I'm not going there, to the EF. I'm not going back."
Once an "OVERSELLER" always an "OVERSELLER!
-
That's a VERY STRANGE photograph! Surely I am not the only one
to sense that something is very wrong with the shirt JFK is shown to
be wearing. A guy who would rely upon a fake photo of his jacket is
not going to be unwilling to introduce a fake photo of his shirt!
Fetzer's only port in a storm...THE PHOTO MUST BE FAKE!
ROFLMAO!
-
Robert,
Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a matter to be debated but a fact to be observed.
Please observe the amount of shirt fabric bulging above the bottom of his shirt collar in this photo.
That kind of multiple-inch bunch-up entirely above the base of the neck is what is required by the SBT.
Compare that with the indentation of the slightly elevated jacket on the corner of Main and Houston, the indentation is below the bottom of the collar.
Anyone gifted with sight who can't observe this obvious discrepancy must exist in an odd vegetative state.
David Von Pein admitted he couldn't resolve this discrepancy -- and he's the one who put the airplane photo into evidence.
There is nothing to debate or discuss -- the act of observation closes the issue.
You are right, there is NOTHING left to debate. There was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back ..as the WEAVER photo shows so well.
Thanks so much Cliff for proving me correct once again.
-
This is beyond idiotic. Half-a-dozen eyewitnesses, including
the Chief of Police, Secret Service Agents, and Motorcycle
Escort Officers have given both sworn and unsworn reports
that are consistent and convergent. This is the last gasp of
a desperate man, who has dedicated himself to defending
the indefensible--false accounts of the events in the plaza
on 22 November 1963--and he is unwilling to give them up!
And in fact the only one of these that says anything like what you are claiming is Chaney himself.
-
The idea of the jacket bunching as Lamson claims is already
a stretch (and does not affect the argument, since the holes
align with the same location that is supported by the rest of
the evidence), but to make this kind of exaggerated claim on
behalf of the shirt IS SIMPLY ABSURD. Has Lamson never
worn a dress shirt? And JFK's clothing was custom-tailored.
He goes beyond the ridiculous and turns himself into a clown.
Well the images tell another story and you have yet to impeach the images and show evidence they were faked.
Back to the drawing board for you!
No, wait, I'm sure the FETZERING will continue...
1. Fetzering 11 thumbs up
Noun: 1. The act of making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.
2. In philosophy, a method of debate or discussion based of the premise of: I think, therefore I am. I think you're wrong. therefore you are.
3. The act of disagreeing by employing rancor, name calling, ad hominem attacks or straw man argument.
Etymology: Fetzering began in earnest in the late 1960's, being implemented by a JFK conspiracy theorist and has since expanded it's use in the 9/11 debate arena.
1. Without evidence your claim is simple fetzering.
2. He should rely on his data instead of fetzering.
-
How much rubbish from the photo-fakers are we supposed to take?
Anyone who wants to understand what happened in Dealey Plaza
really has to read the collation of eyewitness reports, which provide
a coherent description of what took plane and demonstrate that the
Altgens7 and the home movies are fabrications made after the fact.
Yea, eyewitness testimony...hugely unreliable....kind of like a certain ex-professor...
-
No, that was the whole point. They couldn't fake major newspapers
because it would have been OBVIOUS. Everyone would have noticed.
In fact, that the Altgens6 does not appear in The New York Times in its
23 November 1963 edition is further proof that it was not available yet.
Notice that for all his efforts, Robin Unger has NEVER ADDRESSED THE
BASIC EVIDENCE, namely, the consistent reports from multiple witnesses:
* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”
* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”
* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”
* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”
* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’”
There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that
of others, including Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately
thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the
lunchroom and reported looking back and seeing Chaney motor forward:
Actually he did, and he did it quite well. You missed it.
Oh wait, maybe his posts were faked too.
-
I lost what?
Who let you off moderation?
Did the Tea Party intervene?
You don't know what you lost sucker? lmao. Delusional.....
LOL
Craig, you should volunteer to put yourself on moderation.
Laughter might be your best course of action, Then you can join the chorus laughing AT you.
-
Or does Jim DiEugenio think you can bunch 6 inches of shirt/jacket fabric entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?
The discourse here apparently can't match the level of a kindergartner.
And yet Croft, which Varnell loves to show to try ( and fail) to prove his point shows us exactly that.
A 3+inch fold of fabric on JFK's back and the jacket COLLAR in its normal position.
Kindergarten photo analysis by Cliff Varnell, which is his STANDARD level.
-
I lost what?
Who let you off moderation?
Did the Tea Party intervene?
You don't know what you lost sucker? lmao. Delusional.....
-
JF: Good work by Jim DiEugenio exposing Lamson as a xxxxx.
Thanks, but its not that hard. The guy has the delicacy and nuance of a bull in a china shop.
My question is I thought the xxxxx was on moderation? Who made the decision to take him off?
And better: Why?
Backslapping and you LOST! Roflmao! Delusional......
-
Then there's the other fact--that the argument the wound was at T-3 (and that the autopsy photo is therefore a fake) will never be taken seriously by serious-thinkers.
You're not to be taken seriously on this issue, Pat.
Sorry.
"CV" 2-23-13
"I've only read a few posts. I'm not going there, to the EF. I'm not going back."
Once an "OVERSELLER" always an "OVERSELLER!
-
What Robin Unger is proving is that the CIA made a lot of fake issues of newspapers
for occasions such as this one. The evidence I have adduced PROVES that they are
fabricated photos. No matter how many fakes the produced, that cannot make fake
photos genuine. And we know they are fake from the evidence that I've presented.
Do you REALLY believe the crap you post? I mean really?
-
You have been outed, Lamson. Give it up! It's time to hang up your jock.
You never had anything to contribute. All your efforts are obfuscations. If
you can't tell the difference between a shirt and a jacket, faked photographs
and actual evidence, then there is no hope for you. But then, there never was!
Lamson won't surrender his fake images no matter how absurd
his stance. He doesn't care about truth, only obfuscation. The
evidence--the holes in the shirt and jacket, the Boswell diagram,
the Sibert diagram, the Berkley death certificate, the reenactment
photographs and the mortician's description of the wound--are all
in agreement with this location. Lamson pushes the images because
he has no place else to go. His slender reed is slipping, but he will
never admit it. From the point of view of rationality of belief, he has
only faked images to support him. His contentions are not rational.
But, as Mark Knight observes, that's what we expect from a xxxxx!
Only in your dreams fetzer...only in your dreams.
Get back to us when you can find a way to impeach ALL of the images. ROFLMAO! That will be NEVER.
-
US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication
by Jim Fetzer
Douglas Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009)
Douglas Horne, who served as the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), a five-member civilian panel that Congress entrusted with the authority to declassify documents and records related to the death of JFK held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government agencies, where only the President could over-ride its decisions, recently published INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), a five-volume study of the efforts of the board to declassify documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations related to the assassination of JFK.
As a former government official, historian, and author, he is speaking out to disabuse the public of any lingering belief that THE WARREN REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), Gerald Posner’s CASE CLOSED (1963), or Vincent Bugliosi’s RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) represent the truth about what is known about the assassination of our 35th president, even remotely! Indeed, in relation to a new article, “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”, Horne has made a forceful declaration to set the record straight:
I know, from my former role as a government official on the staff of the ARRB (from 1995–1998), that there is overwhelming evidence of a government-directed medical cover-up in the death of JFK, and of wholesale destruction of autopsy photographs, autopsy x-rays, early versions of the autopsy report, and biological materials associated with the autopsy. Furthermore, dishonest autopsy photographs were created; skull x-rays were altered; the contents of the autopsy report changed over time as different versions were produced; and the brain photographs in the National Archives cannot be photographs of President Kennedy’s brain—they are fraudulent, substitute images of someone else’s brain.
Over and beyond the medical evidence, however, Horne—in Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has also demonstrated that the home movie of the assassination known as “the Zapruder film”—and others that correspond to it, such as the Nix and Muchmore films—have been massively edited to remove indications of Secret Service complicity in the crime and to add other events to these films in order to sow confusion and conceal evidence of the true causes of death of John F. Kennedy. For those unfamiliar with this question, see “Kennedy Assassination Questions”, in which I explain how even the consistent testimony of Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who rushed forward to assist Jackie during the shooting in Dealey Plaza, confirms it.
There are many proofs that the film has been fabricated—including that the driver brought the limo to a halt to make sure he would be killed; that his brains were blown out to the left-rear; and that a motorcycle patrolman accompanying the limo rode forward at the time of the stop to inform Dallas Chief of Police Jessie Curry that the president had been hit. But none of these events appears in the extant version of the film, which has been massively edited. That these events occurred has been established by more than 60 witness reports of the limo stop, where the wound to the back of his head was confirmed by 40 witnesses, including virtually all the physicians at Parkland Hospital, who described cerebellum as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound. The blow-out to the right-front, as seen in the film, therefore, is not authentic.
Indeed, in an appendix to Vol. IV, Horne explains that a copy of the film has now been studied by Hollywood exerts, who found that the blow-out to the back of his head had been painted over in black in an amateurish effort to obfuscate the blow out, which can actually be seen in a few later frames, including 372 and 374. Those who have persisted in defense of the authenticity of the film have offered three major arguments—(1) that the features of the extant film correspond to those of the original processed in Dallas, (2) that there was an unbroken chain of custody, which precluded the film be changed; and (3) that the Dealey Plaza films are not only consistent with themselves but with one another, where the Zapruder could only have been faked if the others had been as well.
The following extracts from INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, demonstrate that all three arguments are fallacious: (1) there are five features of the extant film that differ from those of the original and (2) that different films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days, which vitiates the chain-of-custody argument. The consistency of the films with one another (3) turns out to be an interesting question, since they all seem to have been edited to remove the turn of the presidential limousine from Houston onto Elm. More significantly, there are subtle inconsistencies between the films and, most importantly, the Zapruder film is not even consistent with itself, which proves that it cannot possibly be authentic!
Horne’s new studies thus confirm the previous research that has previously been reported in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX(2003), “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery” (2007), and “Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid” (2008), “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?” (2009), “The JFK ‘Head Shot’ Paradox” (2010), where more can be found at assassinationscience.com. An especially valuable study, which uses the new enhanced version of the Zapruder film (by removing pincushion and aspect-ratio distortion and adding missing frames and correcting the order of others) has been produce by John P. Costella, Ph.D., as his “JFK assassination film hoax” tutorial.
(1) Five features of the original do not match the extant film
INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV (2009), p. 1292:
Conclusions
In his long essay published in 2007 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, Josiah Thompson [NOTE: the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), an early study based on the Zapruder film] told us we should all trust [retired Kodak expert on celluloid] Rollie Zavada’s judgment and defer to his authority:
“Roland Zavada has a towering reputation in the field and no conceivable reason for cooking his conclusions.”
Now that we have concluded examining his report and Zavada’s changes of mind since that time, it is clear that he has cooked his conclusions. In particular, he has ignored—trashed—key testimony:
*That the exposures were not bracketed at the Jamieson lab when the three ‘first day copies’ were struck, meaning that the three ‘first generation’ copies today should not be bracketed copies;
*That a ‘full frame’ aperture (picture plus soundtrack) was used when duplicating the Zapruder film, meaning that the intersprocket images should be present on the ‘first generation copies’;
*That the edge printer light was turned off when the original film was developed, meaning that there a double registration of processing edge prints in the family scenes on the extant ‘first generation’ copies; and,
*That the camera original film was slit at the Kodak plant in Dallas, meaning that the 16 mm wide, unslit black-and-white copies in existence today cannot have originated from the camera original film, and are instead indirect evidence that a new ‘original’ was created as an unslit 16 mm, double 8 movie (just as Homer McMahon’s expert testimony to the ARRB indicates).
Furthermore, Zavada’s opposition to the shooting of a control film in Zapruder’s actual camera in Dealey Plaza—which was inexplicable and extremely frustrating when it occurred in 1997—now takes on a very different taint, one of possibly intentional sabotage of the authentication effort by the ARRB staff. An incredible charge, you say? Not necessarily.
Read more on pages 1292 through 1294 as well as 1243 to 1292. And this does not take into account that the numbers on the extant film are not punched in the same location as the original. Read Horne to appreciate the depth of Zavada’s deception.
(2) Different films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days
Not only has Doug Horne demonstrated that the strips of film—the actual celluloid—of the film that was processed in Dallas and the extant “Zapruder film” are not the same, but he has demonstrated that David Wrone has misled his audience and distorted the evidence about the chain-of-custody, where one film—apparently the original, was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 23 November 1963, which was an 8mm, slit version, the processing of which Bruno Brugioni, Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, supervised, which even required opening a camera store to purchase an 8mm projector, which the NPIC did not possess, while a second, 16mm unslit version, was brought to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 December 1963, by Secret Service Agent “William Smith,” which was handled by Homer McMahon and by Ben Hunter, who had not been present the night before, and a very different film.
INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1226 and 1227:
Analysis: First of all, we can now say with certainty that the NPIC never copied the Zapruder film as a motion picture, even though for years the NPIC notes had mislead some researchers into believing that it had. However, Homer McMahon’s rock-solid certainty that the film brought to him was an original, unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 movie—and that it came from a classified CIA photo lab run by Kodak at Rochester—implies that McMahon and Hunter were not working with the true camera original developed in Dallas, but were instead working with a re-created, altered film masquerading as ‘the original.’ I suspected in 1997, and I am more certain than ever today at this writing in 2009, that ‘Bill Smith’ told the truth when he said that the film he couriered to NPIC was developed in Rochester—after all, how could he possible make a mistake about something so elementary, since he brought it from Rochester to Washington, D.C. himself? He was only lying about one thing: it could not have been the original film exposed inside Abe Zapruder’s camera, because we know from the Dallas Affidavit trail, and from the interviews Rollie Zavada conducted with the surviving personnel from the Dallas Kodak lab, that the original film was indeed developed in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963.
If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated ‘original’ created with an optical printer at the CIA’s secret film lab in Rochester.
The critical information published in the ARRB call and meeting reports about our interviews with McMahon and Hunter in 1997 was published in full by Jim Fetzer in the year 2000 in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, but was subsequently ignored by Josiah Thompson in a 2007 essay posted on the Mary Ferrell website (note 14) and was intentionally under-reported and misrepresented by David Wrone in his 2003 book on the Zapruder film. This is what many advocates of a specific hypothesis or a historical position resort to when the heat is on and their longstanding positions on key issues are threatened by new evidence: all too often they either ignore the argument of their opponents as if they do not exist, or they will misrepresent them, intentionally setting up a false ‘straw man,’ and then knock it down. In the case of the serious chain-of-custody implications of the McMahon interviews, Thompson chose to ignore the problem in 2005 and again in 2007, while David Wrone has not only misreported/misrepresented their import, but he has overstated the case for authenticity, as I shall demonstrate below.
In his 2003 book THE ZAPRUDER FILM: REFRAMING JFK’S ASSASSINATION, Wrone fails to report the specific content of the Homer McMahon interviews (nor does McMahon’s name even appear in Wrone’s index), and then completely misreports what I have said about them (on page 127), as follows:
Similarly spurious is Douglas Orme’s charge (yes, he misspelled my name, too) that Time, Inc. allowed the film to be altered. In MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, Horne argues that Time, Inc. permitted the film to be taken by Federal Officials for doctoring. [This statement was followed by endnote 36, which simply refers to page 319 of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, without telling the reader what is on page 319. Page 319 is the interview report I wrote of the Homer McMahon interview of July 14, 1997 at the National Archives.] Like Zapruder, however, Time knew it had a treasure in the Zapruder film, and it would do nothing to endanger the flow of revenue it expected from those 26 seconds of film. [boldface added by author]
Shame on you David Wrone! There are so many things wrong with this short paragraph that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, and most importantly, Wrone never mentioned in his text that the Head of the Color Lab at NPIC, the world’s pre-eminent photo interpretation lab in 1963, claimed that he had [had] delivered to him by the Secret Service, prior to the President’s funeral, a 16 mm wide, unslit original double 8 film of the Kennedy assassination that was developed in Rochester, the location from which the courier brought him the film!!! So David Wrone’s first sin is that of intellectual dishonesty—hiding facts from his readers which might have contradicted his own thesis that the extant film in the Archives today is authentic and unaltered. His second sin is that of putting words in my mouth: it is simply not true that I said anywhere in Fetzer’s book that Time, Inc. had allowed the film to be altered! The editor of the anthology, Jim Fetzer, published only my call reports and meeting reports of what the witnesses told the ARRB staff, and no one used that language in their interviews with us. So Wrone set up a straw man here which he attempted to knock down with a private enterprise profit motive, while all the time ignoring facts about C.D. Jackson’s long standing associations with the CIA and the national security establishment during the decade of the 1950s. If Wrone had been intellectually above-board, he would have talked honestly about the content of the McMahon/Hunter interviews, and then stated why he did not find these eyewitness recollections persuasive, if that was the case; instead, he took the coward’s way out and intentionally failed to report what McMahon had said. . . .
Note 14: The name of the lengthy 3-part essay is “Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination,” and is based upon a somewhat shorter version delivered by Thompson on November 19, 2005 at a conference sponsored by Jim Lesar’s Assassination Archives and Research Center (ARRC) and the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law.
(3) The Zapruder film displays inconsistencies with other films and with itself
INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1336 to 1337:
The Alteration of the Zapruder Film was Rushed and Imperfect
Because there are physical limitations to what can be altered in a film—particularly on a tight schedule and when faced with time pressure—the alteration of the Zapruder film was imperfect, and it therefore had to be suppressed as a motion picture even after its gross alteration to conceal what the forgers had been unable to remove. My working hypothesis postulates that because the cabal that killed the president (and which was feverishly covering up the crime that weekend) did not yet know, on the weekend of the assassination, what type of investigation(s) would be conducted of the crime, or by which governmental bodies, speed was of the essence. By late Sunday afternoon—after discussing the limitations to the film’s alteration with the technicians at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester—they would have known that while the car stop had been removed from the film, and the exit debris leaving the back of President Kennedy’s skull had also been removed, that a serious problem remained: the so-called ‘head snap,’ or violent movement of the President’s head and upper body to the left and rear, in response to the frontal head shots. This was a simple and persuasive demonstration of the law of conservation of momentum that even a layperson without a physics degree could viscerally understand, and the public could not be permitted to see it, or the lone assassination cover story would not sell . . .
The film’s imperfect alteration was revealed in other ways aside from the ‘headsnap.’ As later discovered by Josiah Thompson, Ray Marcus, and other researchers, and as written about in scores of books now and as mentioned in hundreds of lectures, the extant film contains evidence of a very serious ‘timing problem’: President Kennedy and Governor Connally react to separate shots that occur too close together to have been fired in succession by the rather slow mechanism of the alleged murder weapon. The Warren Commission staff expressed great concern about this internally, and ultimately dealt with it dishonestly by concluding that the same bullet had hit both men, and that Connally had unaccountably exhibited a ‘delayed reaction’ to his very severe and painful wounds. What we do not know today is whether the ‘timing problem’ is an artifact of frame removal, or whether those frames of the film prior to the headshot were not tampered with, and reflected the true reality of the assassination farther up Elm Street in the vicinity of the Stemmons Freeway sign. Either possibility is [better: could be] true. Given what we know about the robust evidence in favor of alteration of the Zapruder film, it would be imprudent for JFK researchers to continue to claim that the ‘timing problem’ is the primary evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. It isn’t. Given the overwhelming evidence that the camera original has been altered, the ‘timing problem’ should now be demoted to simply being ‘possible evidence’ of conspiracy. Eyewitness and earwitness testimony from Dealey Plaza alone, and the behavior of the impact debris after the head shots, are the true ‘bedrock evidence’ that proves conspiracy, not the ‘timing problem,’ which is inevitably suspect now, because of the overwhelming evidence that the camera original Zapruder film was altered on Sunday, November 24, 1963.
One final and undeniable mistake by the forgers was their failure to black out the real exit wound(s) in the posterior skull in all frames. I believe one of two exit wounds can been seen today, with proper magnification, in frames 335 and 337 of the extant film [NOTE: and in frames 372 and 374, where a comparison between David Mantik’s study of “Area P” in the lateral cranial X-rays and the blow-out to the back of the head can be viewed in “Dealey Plaza Revisited,” Chapter 30 of JOHN F. KENNEDY: HISTORY, MEMORY, LEGACY (2009), which can be downloaded here.] The best images of this to date have been published in HIGH TREASON (the color plate in the cloth edition, opposite page 387), in [Harrison Livingston’s] THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY: DECODING THE FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM (on page 264) and in [Robert Groden’s] THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (on page 38). While the forgers were ‘successful’ in superimposing rather poor aerial imaging artwork of an enormous head wound on the top and right side of President Kennedy’s head in the Zapruder film—a head wound which is grossly inconsistent with the localized posterior blowout observed at Parkland Hospital, and only roughly consistent with the autopsy photos taken after clandestine post mortem surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital—they failed to properly execute their most basic task, which was to hide all evidence of posterior exit wounds in the back of JFK’s head. Persons in the government were clearly aware of this problem, for the last frame of the Zapruder film published in volume XVIII of the Warren Commission’s 26 supporting volumes was frame 334, the frame immediately prior to those which show one of the two exit defects in the back of the head. ‘Coincidences’ like this are not worthy of belief, and the fact that the Warren Commission stopped publishing at frame 334 strongly implies that someone on the staff—presumably Specter and Rankin—knew they had a problem in frames 335 and 337, and so simply decided not to publish those frames. For them, discretion was the better part of valor. . . .
INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, pages 1317 to 1320 (in part):
If the Zapruder Film is an Alteration, Doesn’t This Mean That Other Films of the Assassination Must Have Been Altered Also? Also, Are There Inconsistencies Between Other Films and the Zapruder Film?
Absolutely—alteration of the Zapruder film does indeed imply that in a perfect conspiracy, that other films would have been altered also, and in the same way as the Zapruder film. If they were not altered and the Zapruder film was, this would have left undeniable evidence in the photographic record that “the” pre-eminent record of the assassination is indeed an alteration. In fact, what we do find in the evidence is one suggestion of identical alteration; and numerous indications of disagreement between various Dealey Plaza films and the Zapruder film.
The Turn from Houston Onto Elm May Have Been Removed from the Zapruder Film, the Nix Film, and the Muchmore Film
First, let us examine the suggested identical alteration of the Zapruder film, the Nix film, and the Muchmore film. Neither the Nix film, the Muchmore film,nor the Zapruder film show the Presidential limousine turning left from Houston Street onto Elm Street. Orville Nix told Mark Lane (on film) in 1966 that his film has initially been ‘lost’ by the processing plant and that when the FBI returned his film to him, some of the frames had been ‘damaged’ and were missing. The originals of both the Nix film and the Muchmore film (taken from the opposite side of thje plaza from which Zapruder was shooting his film, and from much farther away) are missing today. How convenient. The absence of first-frame overexposure in frame 133 of the Zapruder film suggests, but in my view does not prove, that the limousine’s turn from Houston onto Elm was removed when the film was altered and recreated, using an optical printer. The fact that the originals of the Nix and Muchmore films are missing is extremely suspicious; they may have been removed from circulation to prevent detection of their alteration—specifically, removal of the limousine’s turn onto Elm from Houston and of the car stop during the assassination. If ever found, one of the first things that should be checked is to see if the limousine’s turn onto Elm Street in these two films has been excised—either crudely, with splices, or via reprinting those films in an optical printer.
Clint Hill’s Interactions with Jackie Kennedy on the Trunk of the Limousine Appear to be Inconsistent in the Nix Film and the Zapruder Film
There is also significant disagreement between the Nix film and the Zapruder film. In Harry Livingstone’s 2004 book about the Zapruder film, he discusses differences between the images of Clint Hall and Jackie Kennedy on the trunk of the limousine in the Nix film, versus what is shown in the Zapruder film. Livingstone correctly points out that in the Nix Film, Clint Hill appears to place his left arm around Jackie Kennedy’s right shoulder and push her back into her seat—where as in the Zapruder film, he barely touches her with his right hand, and is not seen embracing her with his left arm at all. (See pages 250–251 of Livingstone for the pertinent Nix frames, and the MPI video of the Zapruder film for comparison. A projected version of the portion of the Nix film showing Clint Hill on the trunk of the limousine can been seen in the 1973 film “Executive Action,” and it can be seen in its entirety in the Groden DVD JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy.)
Is the “Headsnap” Different in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films?
The ‘headsnap” in the Nix film appears to be slightly slower, and less violent than in the Zapruder film; in the Muchmore film, there appears to be no ‘headsnap’ visible at all, but this may be inconclusive because of the camera angle at the time of the headshot(s) and because the line of sight to the President’s head is obstructed by Dealey Plaza bystanders immediately afterwards. (See episode 3 of “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” for footage oft he headshot(s) in both the Nix and the Muchmore films; both films can also been seen in their entirety in Robert Groden’s DVD JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy.) The perceived differences between the headshot(s) in the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films suggests that when debris exiting from the back of President Kennedy’s head was removed from the three films, that it was not done uniformly, resulting in three slightly different versions of the motion of the President’s head caused by the fatal shot(s). This has not been conclusively proven, but is worthy of further investigation. . . .
Concluding Reflections
There is much more, but the Addendum, “The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood,” pages 1352 to 1363, is of special interest, where highly qualified experts on film restoration viewed a digital version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives and found that the massive blow out at the back of the head had been painted over in black, which was a stunning confirmation of the observation of Roderick Ryan, reported in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the bulging out of brains—called the “blob”—and the blood spray visible in frames 314 and thereafter had also been painted in, where Ryan would receive the Academy Award in 2000 for his contributions to cinematography, where his area of specialization was special effects.
As of this date, seven Hollywood film experts—eight, if we include Ryan—have agreed that the fakery used to cover up the blow out to the back of the head by painting it over in black was very primitive and highly amateurish, a finding that they have based upon a 6k version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has verified these artifacts using the 4×5 slides created by MPI when it produced a digital version of the film—which are archived at The 6th Floor Museum—the inadequacies of which are explained in “Which Film is ‘the Zapruder Film’?,” by me and Scott Lederer, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), page 31, which is now available on-line as the first of the (total of) 66-segments of The Duluth Conference on YouTube (under “Zapruder Fakery” or “JFK Zapruder Hoax”). The creation of this visual deception was an elaborate undertaking but contained the elements of its own refutation.
“Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery” is an astonishing achievement. For Horne to have assimilated and synthesized such a complicated and technical assortment of arguments and evidence impresses me beyond words. This chapter alone is worth the price of the whole. No matter what reservations or differences I may have with any other parts of his work, what he has done on the film is extraordinary. He was my featured guest on “The Real Deal” on
Wednesday, 13 January 2010, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009);
and then again on Wednesday, 24 February 2010, with
“Post-Mortem Surgery”, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009);
“Witnesses were Present”, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009);
“Humes and Boswell Lied”, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009);
“How to Sort Things Out”, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009);
and then again on Wednesday, 31 March 2010,
INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. V, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009);
and, most recently, on Friday, 18 November 2011,
"On Switching the Films", INSIDE THE ARRB (2009).
In addition, I have published a three-part blog about him and his work, which can be found at there: Part I, Part II, and Part III. Those who want to pursue these fascinating and historic developments in JFK assassination research are welcome to pursue these leads.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and maintains an on-line research journal with John P. Costella at http://assassinationresearch.com.
The FETZERING continues. Or it it really just SPAM?
-
Even his argument about the bunching holds no water. Suppose that
the jacket had been bunched. Surely he cannot also maintain
that the shirt was bunched! The absurdity would be apparent. So
he ignores the shirt and pushes the jacket. But David W. Mantik,
with whom I had lunch today, confirmed during one of his many
visits to the Archives that the shirt and the jacket holes align with
the hole in the shirt only slightly lower than the hole in the jacket.
So Lamson is conning us across the board. No surprise there!
No doubt watsoever the jacket was folded on the back. And since the holes in both the shirt and jacket match...well you do the math jim, if you are capable.
Lamson won't surrender his fake images no matter how absurd
his stance.
You have yet to provide proof that all of that photos showing the fold are faked, heck you have not even started. Strike two for Fetzer.
THE ISSUE IS SETTLED.
As thread has aptly shown, its not even CLOSE to being settled. Fifty years on and CT's still can't agree. Strike three jimmy.
Something other than the pursuit of truth is at work here. What that is should be obvious.
That is exactly true...FOR YOU. And you are painfully obvious.
Newseum displays "Oswald's shirt": Proof that he was Doorman!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Because it is a silly question. Lovelady wore a DIFFERENT shirt for thje FBI. Simple.
Because you have it incorrect. The shirt is unbuttoned and open in both films. You simple fail at one of the more basic of photographic principles...point of view. And of course BOTH films show his tee shirt between the unbuttoned placket of his checked shirt.
The only ones grasping for anything is James Feezer and the OIP.
Where was Billy? Right were Altgens shows him, You get so much wrong its hard to believe you would even dare show your face in the rational world.....