Josiah Thompson

If all the films of Dealey Plaza are "self-authenticating", it is because the animators made sure they conformed.

Jack

This is great, Jack. When it is established that all attempts to show discrepancies between any films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza have failed, is this your backup position? If they all agree, this is because the conspiritors... "the "animators"... made sure they conformed."

This is wonderful. You are then absolutely protected from any empirical evidence to the contrary. You have set up a completely unfalsifiable position. You are finally safe from all those folks raising nasty questions about what the evidence really shows. Even if you have no shred of proof you can continue to believe what you want to believe.

Wow, Jack. Like Shakespeard says somewhere, "That way madness lies!!"

Josiah Thompson

You asked, so there you have it Tink,

Now what do you say about the photo evidence of conspiracy that isn't being questioned?

Bill Kelly

I'd say that the two photos you mentioned are only part of the mosaic of photos and films taken in Dealey Plaza that form a self-authenticating whole and can be used as bedrock in any investigation of the case.

Josiah Thompson

You wrote: "Exotic weaponry tested in Oklahoma City was then used to bring down the twin towers."

Having served as Tim McVeigh's defense investigator in the Oklahoma City bombing, I know a little bit about that bombing. This is not just silly. It is preposterous. The federal building in Oklahoma City was destroyed by a bomb constructed of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil... the sort of materials you could buy at your local feed store and fuel depot. This is not controversial. It is simply the unvarnished, established truth of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Josiah Thompson

Few are as relaxed as I. My doctor always compliments my heart rate and blood pressure.

Your prism on things is too narrow. There ARE conspiracies. Vast conspiracies. Not "far out," as you have been led to believe.

Politicians faked going to the moon. Exotic weaponry tested in Oklahoma City was then used to bring down the twin towers.

The war on "terrorism" is a fake. "Presidents" past and present have been elected unconstitutionally and illegally. Agencies

of the government fake evidence to suit their purposes...as far back as the JFK assassination.

It is YOU who need to learn how FAR OUT conspiracies have become. WAKE UP and smell the fakery...from Zfilms to fake

presidents.

Jack

This is a really interesting post, Will Emaus.

But how would you "take an inventory of all cameras in the plaza?" A rolling inventory wouldn't do you much good. You'd have to know right away what you were dealing with to judge whether to make the changes you have in mind. But the only way you could get an idea of what cameras were cranking away in Dealey Plaza would be to look at the films and photos you have of Dealey Plaza. And that would be always incomplete. Take the Nix film for example. Nix kept the film in his camera through the following weekend where he photographed on the same film a high school football game. If you were screwing around with the Zapruder film, the Nix film showing up a week or ten days later could sure cause you a world of woe.

I guess my basic point is that you couldn't put together "an inventory of all cameras in the plaza" or an "overview of how many cameras were in which area" until long after the event. Until long after the films or photos you want to alter have passed through multiple copies after being returned to their owners or, in the case of the Zapruder film, having been published in millions of copies in a national magazine.

I'd be interested in what you think of these considerations, Will Emaus.

Josiah Thompson

One would be to try to take an inventory of all cameras in the plaza. At the very least to have some sort of overview of how many cameras were in which area and at least if you've taken count, you have an idea of how many potential films or photos could realistically surface. Knowing who was filming from where would help drive the decision making process regarding what alterations could be done to the film, by knowing in advance who could later come forward with something contradictory.

Two, you would decide that alteration needed to stay as minimal as possible to avoid other films contradicting the alterations done that could surface later.

So the point is valid, but you should assume that whoever could have had responsibility for this would have accounted for this potential in the upfront decision-making process regarding what to alter.

I know that much more elaborate alteration hypotheses are out there, but alteration can be as simple as splices at 155 and 207 and no other film containing that sequence, could something that simple be managed?

It's daunting for sure, but whether it's impossible I'm not really sold on that yet.

Nope, Jack, that's not the way it goes.

For example, take a look at the thread currently up concerning Chaney's claim he sped ahead of the limousine to deliver a message to Chief Curry. The Zapruder film shows nothing like this. Rather it shows Chaney being left in the dust as the limousine accelerates out of there. You claimed the discrepancy between what Chaney said happened and what the Zapruder film showed was evidence that the Zapruder film was faked up. We showed that the Bell, Nix and Muchmore films all matched the Zapruder film. You did what you always do when bothered by the pesky problem of film corroboration for the Zapruder film. You said they all had been faked up! Then Craig Lamson posted the McIntire photo that confirms what the other films showed... Chaney trailing by several hundred feet as the limousine comes even with Chief Curry's car. You were asked if you believed that the McIntire photo had been faked up. You declined to answer. Was that because you knew the McIntire photo had never been in government hands?

That's the way it goes, Jack.

Josiah Thompson

Anti-alterationists are very selective in what they will discuss. They will not

address studies indicative of alteration of all films, claiming it would be

"too hard" to make several films match.

Jack

You write: "Not bothering to stop to argue over the authenticy of the films and photos, what is the purpose of focusing on all the evidence that points to Oswald and ignoring all the evidence of a gunman in the front if it isn't to support the lone gunman scenario?"

But the authenticity of the films and photos are what I'm talking about. It would be stupid to try to fake them up because the fakery would stand out. As a compilation of photos and films, they are self-authenticating. They have to match each other. It would be stupid to fake them up because you could never know if yet another film or photo would show up to expose your fakery. Thus, the alterationists have to keep adding more and more films to their list of fakes since they can't show any incongruity or discrepancy between the photos and films we have. Should yet another film appear tomorrow that matched exactly with the Zapruder and came from some poor slob's attic in Dubuque, Iowa, the alterationist would start saying that it too had been altered. I'm just saying that the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza is self-authenticating as a compilation. Other evidence... perhaps CE 399, perhaps the autopsy photos and x-rays, etc.... may well have been faked up. But we have to start somewhere, so why not start with the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza? Smart people have been starting with that evidence for the last fifty years. Why trash it now? Why trash it after alterationists have been trying to impeach it for two decades and have failed miserably?

This argument has nothing to do with your reply, Bill. What do you think of what I just said?

Josiah Thompson

You make a devastatingly simple point, Mark.

If the alterationist position is correct... that is, if all the photos and films from Dealey Plaza are deemed to be fakes... what do we have left? Physical evidence like bullet fragments, holes in clothing, lead smears on the inside of the windshield? But all of this physical evidence was collected by government agents and in government custody. If the film evidence from Dealey Plaza (including films the FBI never heard of until after they had been shown on TV) is deemed suspect, then the physical evidence is even more suspect. What does that leave you with? Eyewitness testimony. But empirical studies by Elizabeth Loftus have pointed out again and again that almost every factor that degrades the reliability of eyewitness testimony was present in Dealey Plaza. That is why the eyewitness testimony we have is contradictory and malleable over time.

The truth is that if the alterationists have their wish they will have destroyed the ability to offer any founded opinions about the Kennedy assassination. If it is true that government agents were involved in the assassination, then the alterationists will have achieved the final government cover-up. Oddly enough, then, the alterationist position is then disclosed for what it is... the "final solution" of obstructionism.

The reality, of course, is quite different. For four decades, we have relied on the amazing good fortune that Abe Zapruder climbed up on that pedestal and that Mary Moorman shot her Polaroid, to anchor what we were saying about Dealey Plaza. The photo evidence properly has beer the armature we used to build an understanding of what happened there. The alterationists have tried for almost twenty years now to make their claim through a series of arguments about anomalies... that is, discrepancies between the Zapruder film and eyewitness testimony or other films. After nearly two decades of trying, not a single argument stands up. "Anomaly" after "anomaly" have been offered and then explained innocently.

It is simply not true that the FBI was even very interested in film evidence of the assassination. Another thread has shown how they came tardy to the Muchmore film after it had been acquired by a news service and shown on TV. The Moorman photo was put out on a wire service within an hour or so of the shooting, long before it even came to the FBI's attention. The FBI sent an agent to one photo lab in the Dallas area and that was for about a week. The other two labs (including the Kodak lab) contented themselves with sending out a notice with processed film asking the person to contact the FBI if their film was of the assassination. Given such a loose hold on the film and photo evidence, it would have been madness to try to fake something up. Why? Because the other films... those undiscovered, those viewed and then returned to their owners, those processed in other cities, those put away and only processed much later... would make the fake film stand out.

After all the angry words, the evidentiary situation remains unchanged.

Josiah Thompson

I guess I'm just expressing my frustration here. But if Fetzer is right, if Jack White is right, if NONE of the evidence [except JFK's suit] is what it appears to be...then perhaps it's time for someone to step up and, rather than concentrating on impeaching ALL the evidence [except JFK's suit], maybe these "super sleuths" can tell us exactly what DID happen..in what exact sequence...and who did what, when, and why.

If we impeach ALL the evidence...what are we left with? The "certainty" that we can never know the truth? It sure seems as if that's the direction that Fetzer, et al, are directing things. And if we can never get to the bottom of the crime, then the study of the JFK assassination certainly HAS become nothing more than a parlor game; a pastime without a purpose.

Is that where we really want to end up?

Good post, Jack. The one thing Tink and Jerry and Lamson and the rest cannot abide is honest to god evidence!

Post by Robin Ungar today: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15281

As Chief Curry told me in 1979, he spoke with Chaney on the access ramp to Stemmons. At that time, the McIntire photo was unknown, but now I know that the area to which Curry referred was past McIntire's location. And Mel McIntire's photos were never out of his possession at any time. They were first published in 1983 in a Dallas Times Herald 20th anniversary special.

Gary Mack

It is now clear to me that Chaney didn't catch up to the Currie car until AFTER they reached the Stemmons access ramp.

After the McIntire photo's were taken.

Robin Ungar

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15281

Post by Chris Scally today: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15281

Robin:

You beat me to it. An ISP connectivity problem prevented me posting this a few days ago:

- DPD Officer Earle Brown, on the railway overpass above Stemmons, told Earl Golz in March 1980 that he saw the limo and 4 other cars stop on the Stemmons on-ramp for at least 30 secs. Brown later repeated his story for Gary Mack;

- Officer Doug Jackson told Mack in 1981 that he and Chaney raced after lead car, caught up with it after about 30 secs, and Chaney spoke through window to Curry;

- Curry told another researcher (whose name I cannot recall at this moment) in 1979 that Chaney caught up with him as they began climbing the Stemmons on-ramp;

- Curry told Mack that he slowed down in order to find out if anyone had been hit, as he was unaware that anyone had been hit until Chaney told him. He also said he then had to tell the limousine driver, Secret Service agent Bill Greer, how to get to Parkland Hospital, before issuing “Go to hospital” order;

- Curry told the Warren Commission that he did not transmit on Channel 2 until after he spoke to Motorcycle Officer Jim Chaney;

- DPD Officer Courson said lead car had slowed sufficiently for him to catch it on the Stemmons access road, and Courson was 100-120 feet behind McLain in the motorcade, and McLain was himself about 140 feet behind the Presidential limo when the shots were fired. (Courson was appprox. 80 yds behind JFK at Z-313);

- Chaney is in the extreme left edge of the Daniel film (in the inter-sprocket images, I believe) , and in the Mel McIntire photo - in both cases, he hasn't yet caught up with Curry;

It is therefore highly unlikely/improbable that his conversation with Curry was excised from the Zapruder film.

Chris

My answers are in boldface.

Tink:

I'm pleased to see that this debate has caused you to go your attic and pull prints from over four decades ago. I'm sure it was not the most pleasant experience. You're revisiting events from forty-three years ago--November, 1966--when you were under a lot of pressure, facing the possibility that Life would prevent publication of your book (by preventing use of Zapruder frames) [No. This never came up. Any pressure I was under came from teaching full-time and also working on the LIFE investigation. What's the relevance in any case?] and so your were covertly copying Life's precious Z frames, using a Nikkon camera and a copy stand.

Quoting from your post, based on your current examination of these materials: "It is clear that the back of JFK’s head is in shadow in all the frames. However, the darkness of that shadow does not vary from frame to frame. Hence, it is just not the case that frame 317 is different from the rest in any discernible fashion with respect to the appearance of the back of JFK’s head. Some frames are clearer than others but what Horne says is there, sorry, is just not there!" UNQUOTE

". . .in shadow in all the frames. . . "?

Now that's an interesting assertion.

Built into that explanation is an "innocent explanation" for why the back of JFK's head is--my language now--blacked out in frame after frame. For you, apparently, its simply a matter of it being "in shadow in all the frames."

As someone who has studied this imagery for years--and has had the benefit of examining the 3 x 4" LIFE transparencies back in 1967, and then again in 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time Life, and--more important to me--the dramatically clear images on the Weitzman 35 mm Internegative (from which I made excellent Interpositives), I could not disagree more. The back of JFK's head is not "in shadow in all the frames". Rather, the back of the head--in precisely the area where the Dallas doctors observed an exit wound, is blacked out--that's right, opaque--in frame after frame.

And by the way, with regard to invoking the terminology of a "shadow". . . What, pray tell, is casting such a shadow, a shadow appearing on the back of JFK's head? A shadow is an absence of light caused by an interposed object. What is the intervening object? Did a large bird fly between Kennedy and the sun? Are we not at noon day sun? [The interposed object is Kennedy's head! Just as the shadow that hides part of Connally is caused by Connally's head. Do you mean you really don't grasp this incredibly elementary point?] (And pardon me, but isn't there so much light, and isn't its intensity supposedly so great, that its forcing the images to go "full flush left"--per Lamson? But let's skip that subject for now, shall we?)

Here's my opinion, based on what I see.

1. The back of the head is in fact deliberately blacked out ---frame after frame after frame. [so you say. Is your opinion evidence? For evidence, why don't you and Horne produce a scan of 317 and let us see the evidence or not for what you are claiming.]

2. This cannot be "explained" by the concept of a "shadow." [since the position of the sun that day would cast a shadow.. not from a bird flying over (laugh out loud)... but from Kennedy's head right where we see it, I guess you have to go a little further to explain why this isn't an "explanation."]

3. I am deliberately using quotation marks on the word "shadow" because I think this attempt to "explain" constitutes a strained and artificial attempt to account for data that is inconsistent with your strongly held belief that the film is authentic. [it's the simplest explanation and one that is confirmed by other shadows in the frame. And I guess we shouldn't mention your "strongly held belief" since neither your belief nor mine has anything to do with the evidence for and against.]

4. Regarding your belief about the Z film's authenticity: That belief is your Rock of Gibraltar, the very center of your universe. For you, this is not just about "the car stop" or "the back of the head"--although both are powerful indicia of falsification. For you, the stakes are much higher. After all, you're the writer who--in good faith, I believe--wrote the words that (when it came to Dallas) the Zapruder film was the closest thing to "absolute truth." Perhaps you believed that at the time. But, unfortunately, it is anything but. The Zapruder film is (that is, "was") a forger's paradise. The Zapruder film, in its current incarnation, is like a check to which zero's have been added---seriously changing the amount; but you simply refuse to believe that. So there is a more powerful dynamic at work here, and the stakes are indeed much higher--not only for you, but for everyone else on what I shall call "your side" of the debate. For if the President's wounds were altered, and if the imagery of this event was manipulated, your side's entire concept of what happened in Dallas in November 1963 is shown to be invalid--totally invalid. And you, in particular, because of the special position you held at Life, are particularly vulnerable. I have no reason to believe that you were cognizant of film forgery back in 1966. Certainly, I was not, and so I'm assuming you weren't either. But you had a privileged position at Life Magazine, and wrote a book that grew out of that position, and the special access you had to some very special evidence. So, in my opinion, you're now in the position of a bank teller who unwittingly cashed checks that were phony, and is now defending the transaction, insisting the checks you cashed were genuine--insisting on the integrity of a bank customer who presented these forgeries at your window. Candidly, I'm surprised at the lack of vision. Those who maintain the view that nothing is wrong with the Zapruder film seem to think that researching this case comes down to focusing on the elusive search for a "second assassin." That's their "conspiracy"--and it hasn't changed much since 1966. Unfortunately, that is NOT the issue. The stakes are higher, and the issue is in fact much bigger: its fraud in the evidence: The deliberate falsification of the autopsy conclusions--via alteration of the body--and the civilian imagery, as well. That's the "big picture." The blackened out area at the back of JFK's head [that you and Horne claim is quite apparent in Z317 but for some reason you won't post a scan that shows it] happens to be one manifestation of what's going on here; it is just one example. The car stop is another. [You must be kidding! Next we're going to be hearing about "Moorman-in-the Street" or "the Seven Foot Woman]And there is more. But (apparently) you will have none of it, you defend the sanctity of your much beloved 1966 "reality," and so you seek "innocent explanations" for all this. Essentially, you invoke mass misperception of velocity (when the issue is the car stop); or, misperception of wound observations by trained doctors when it comes to where wounds are located (when it comes to the head wounds) etc. For you and those on your side, Dealey Plaza has turned into the Bermuda Triangle. Nothing was perceived properly (you in effect say) and so that explains all the problems with the evidence. But none of that is true, of course. The problem is with the evidence, not with the witnesses. But, back to the subject at hand. . . [Thanks for a long paragraph of rehetoric... but evidence, well that's not very apparent].

4. The blacked out area (you now concede is present in frame after frame, but falsely attribute to "shadow") is particularly noticeable when the back of JFK's head is pointed at (i.e., "exposed to") Zapruder's telephoto lens in frames 321, and 323. But 317 offers another example. [so publish a scan of 317 so we can see what you're claiming. What's the problem?]

5. The artificiality of the "patch" is particularly noticeable if one varies the density of light--as when one is "dodging" a still photo in photography lab. The trapezoidal contour of the patch, for example, is very noticeable in Z frame 317, as Horne published in black and white. [it may be there in what Horne published from a 5th generation print with God knows what digital manipution and printing artifacts. I know it's not there because I've been looking at a better copy and there is no trapezoidal contour or "patch" there. Post a TIFF on some site like Pando and let us see what you are talking about.] When digitized properly, it is very obvious that there is a trapezoidal area that is opaque. And the patched area can be seen in frame after frame on the Z fllm. [Cool. Show it to us instead of talking about it... endlessly.]

6. The blackened out area is opaque. It is not possible to discern hair or scalp or anything of the sort beneath the blackened out area. (FYI: This is in stark contrast to frames 335 and 337 on the Z film, where the phony painted on "exit wound" has a translucent quality, and JFK's head beneath, can in fact be seen. I suppose that's because there is a basic difference between "adding on" imagery, and "blacking out" something that is already there. [Then please show it to us. Just post frame 317 and let us have a look.]

Yes, the blackened out area IS there; and its not a misperception. I'm sure that if densitometer measurements were done, the rather obvious border of the patch, or the artwork, or whatever it is, could be readily detected. But I really do not believe that is necessary. I trust my own eyes, and I'm sure that if these frames are properly digitized, the patch job that was done will be readily perceivable, and highly visible. [Fine. They we can trust our own eyes to see what you say is there.]

7. I don't like making predictions, but here's a safe bet: the stakes are sufficiently high that the Sixth Floor Museum will line up "experts" who will denigrate, seek to "explain" and claim to "not see" what is clearly there. But ultimately, and largely because of the Internet, none of this will matter, because the world has moved on, and everything has changed. Neither you, nor I, will have exclusive access to this imagery. The whole world will be the jury. Because of the Internet, attempts to fuzz up the issue, and to turn this into an "argument from authority" will fail.

"Experts" are not necessary to "see" what is obvious. [You've hit the nail on the head there. Show us a TIFF of 317 and explain where it came from and what was done to it. Then each of us can be our own expert. Why isn't this crushingly obvious. We've all heard you say again and again how obvious it is. Cool. Let us take a gander at it.]

I ask you, Tink Thompson, when are you gong to "come around" and "see" not just "the patch," but the bigger picture, as well? [Like the ad says, "Show me the beef! Make a TIFF of Z 317 available and I'll let you know if I see it.] You were involved in writing a book that was based on forged evidence. Are you capable of understanding that? Will you ever accept it? Can you deal with it? That is the question. [The question is whether you are blowing smoke here. Simple solution to the question: Show us Z 317 in a TIFF file and specify its provenance.]

DSL

1/15/1- 7:30 PM

Los Angeles, CA

here is a copy of zap 317 that bill miller posted for us some time ago fwiw..b

and also enlarged...b

Like me, I imagine all of you are looking at the TV footage from Haiti. Pretty awful. I’m sitting here in my home only about 220 yards from the San Andreas Fault thinking about what would happen with a similar quake here. Last time... the Loma Prieta quake... I was on the Golden Gate Bridge when it hit. I thought I’d gotten a flat tire. I pulled up at the toll station, opened my door and looked back at my left rear tire. It was fine. Then I paid my toll and noticed that all the traffic lights were off on Lombard Street. When I got to Union Street, all my friends were out on the street. That’s when I learned there had been an earthquake.

Back to the point at issue...

I found an 8" by 10" print of a close-up from Z 317. This would have been an enlargement from a negative of the whole print like the one I posted before. It comes from a negative taken with Plus X film of LIFE’s 4" by 5" transparencies. They were made from in camera original. Hence, my negative is a copy of a copy. Here it is:

Jack White posted a color enlargement of Z 317. He has not stated where he got it. Here it is:

Finally, Doug Horne published a black and white copy taken from the 6000 mp digital copy of a fourth or fifth generation copy of the original. It is published on page 187 of Volume I or his book. Here it is:

My problem is that I cannot scan transparencies with the equipment I have. To scan my transparency, a close-up taken with Ektachrome of LIFE’s 4" by 5" transparency of Z 317, I would have to take it to a professional photolab in San Francisco. I’ve done this before with negative of the Moorman photo that I obtained by copying her Polaroid in 1966. However, it is kind of a pain and it will cost a couple of hundred bucks. I’m wondering whether that is really necessary. Why? Because Jack’s enlargement shows just about what I see in my transparency. The color balance is a bit different because I was shooting Ektachrome and Jack’s copy is Kodachrome but they are almost identical in terms of detail. This can be seen by comparing my black and white close-up above with Jack White’s closeup. Now look at the black and white photo Horne published. It is different from both Jack’s color close-up and my black and white close-up. In Horne’s photo, there does seem to be some sort of dark blob at the back of JFK’s head. Yet nothing like this appears in either Jack’s color close-up or my black and white close-up. What do you folks think?

I did one additional thing. I cranked up my old Carousel slid projector and had a look in sequence at the frames starting with Z 310 and ending with Z 323. It is clear that the back of JFK’s head is in shadow in all the frames. However, the darkness of that shadow does not vary from frame to frame. Hence, it is just not the case that frame 317 is different from the rest in any discernible fashion with respect to the appearance of the back of JFK’s head. Some frames are clearer than others but what Horne says is there, sorry, is just not there!

This makes me wonder whether the black blob described by Horne as: "The lower half of the back of JFK’s head – hair that was very brown, or perhaps a cross between auburn and light gray in the HD scan – was covered up by a jet black patch with very straight artificial edges that appeared to be artwork to me, like opaque black paint placed on top of the natural image of his hair. It was as if a trapezoid (the black patch) with impossibly straight edges had been wrapped around the back of JFK’s head...” may be some change introduced by the fact he’s working from a digital scan of a fourth or fifth generation copy. I’m told that the algorithms used in producing JPEGs etc. have a life of their own. People more knowledgeable than I can talk about that. All I can say is that Jack’s color copy very nearly matches my color copy as it matches the black and white copy I’ve scanned. The proof in the pudding will come when we can see scans of the MPI 4" by 5" copies made from the original film.

Josiah Thompson

Pamela said:

You seem to be missing my point. What would a driver do when they turned away from the road to look at the rear of the vehicle? At the least, take their foot off the gas, don't you think? How about put their foot on the brake?

I am suggesting that the time the limo slowed and/or stopped can be determined to some extent by the number of frames in which Greer was facing the rear of the limo. Do you agree?

Sure. What you say is eminently reasonable but not necessary. Greer could have turned around and kept his foot on the accelerator when he turned around. Why not measure the car's acceleratin or deceleration independent of what Greer is doing or not doing? I don't get the point you are getting to. So enlighten me.

Josiah Thompson

What does age and infusion of chemicals have to do with Jackie's features disappearing?

With his brains blown out, how does JFK keep his arm raised to shoulder level...infusion of chemicals?

Jack

Thanks for posting this enlargement from Zapruder frame 317. Doug Horne looks at a copy of Z 317 and says he sees “a jet black patch with very straight artificial edges that appeared to be artwork to me, like opaque black paint placed on top of the natural image of his hair. It was as if a trapezoid (the black patch) with impossibly straight edges had been wrapped around the back of JFK’s head...”

When you look at this copy of Z 317 is that what you see?

Josiah Thompson

A lot. I'll to count them. The Greer "bionic Man" head snap was debunked years ago by James Gordon.

Josiah Thompson

What I first thought of when I noticed this head snap, was that a frame was missing from the time he started turning his head till the time when he is looking at the President, the frame in between these to frames. Would taking said frame out skip a portion of the movement and make the head turn seem super fast?

What's the simplified/short version of Gordon's debunking of the Greer head snap?

The long version can be found at http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/gordon-greer-turn.html It doesn't take long to read it and understand it. It's been there for several years and has never been refuted. If you don't choose the right frames from when Greer begins his head turn and when he finishes it, you will believe his head turn is unnaturally fast.

Josiah Thompson

A lot. I'll to count them. The Greer "bionic Man" head snap was debunked years ago by James Gordon.

Josiah Thompson

I agree.

Josiah, how many photos did you take of the 1st gen copy Z film?

Jack, you forgot #6 on your top 5, the William Greer "Bionic Man" head snap. To me, that's the most suspicious.

Dr. Thompson,

Miller help you with this image? It's blown out. Of not much use, IMHO... Can you be absolutely sure the LIFE 4x5 trannies you had access to (in 1966) were 1st generation, off the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film or, possibly off of Z-dupe 1, 2 or 3? And would you of known then the difference between the 4 films?

Thanks

DHealy

This print was made in 1966 and used for measurements in 1967. I don't know what you mean by "blown out." At LIFE in the fall of 1966, I was told by Edward Kern and Dick Billings that the 4" by 5" transparencies we were working with were made from the camera original film. You ask, "Miller help you with this image?" That has a kind of nasty, snide tone to it that is completely unnecessary. Was Bill Miller even born in 1966?

Josiah Thompson

My answers are in boldface:

First of all, though we appreciate your posting this, the quality of the b+w Z317 is not all that clear. Is this really a photo of a 4X5 slide supposedly made from the original? Yes.

Is it correct to say that you shot b+w photos, plus color (Ectachrome) photos of the LIFE 4x5 slides that you were told were made from the original? Then you made b+w 8X10 prints from frames 300-333? You also have closeups of some (or all?) of the color photos you took? Yes, that is all correct.

It would really be helpful, when you are complaining about Horne, if you could post the photos from your collection that you are referencing.

Thanks.

Has anyone analyzed JFK's hair surfaces in respect to the other top and side surfaces in Z? Remember, these are the frames in which Kellerman's hair tonic passes for a pistol barrel - so there are some areas of comparison.

I don't know.

Josiah Thompson

I was amazed to find on page 1357 of Volume IV of Horne’s book that he had involved me and copies I had of the Zapruder film in a complicated circumstantial argument that the film had been altered. It all concerns Z frame 317. Horne writes:

“But frame 317 provides the most damning evidence of apparent film alreration... As the old adage goes, “seeing is believing,” and in June of 2009, when Sydney Wilkinson forwarded to a JPEG image of the HD scan of frame 317, I had my own epiphany (See Figures 87 and 88)... What I saw was stunning... The lower half of the back of JFK’s head – hair that was very brown, or perhaps a cross between auburn and light gray in the HD scan – was covered up by a jet black patch with very straight artificial edges that appeared to be artwork to me, like opaque black paint placed on top of the natural image of his hair. It was as if a trapezoid (the black patch) with impossibly straight edges had been wrapped around the back of JFK’s head...” [emphasis in original]

We’ll come back to this description in a moment. But first the reference to me and a favor I extended to David Mantik some years ago. On the same page in a footnote about frame 317, Horne writes:

“David Mantik showed me a scrapbook in August 2009 full of small black-and-white prints of the unauthorized photographs Josiah Thompson took of LIFE magazine’s 4x5 inch color positive transparencies of Zapruder frames in 1966. In Mantik’s scrapbook, there are two missing Z frames, which were not photographed by Thompson (presumably because they were missing from the LIFE collection): 317 and 329. Just how many coincidences are we supposed to believe in when studying the Kennedy assassination?”

“Wait a minute, “ I said to myself. “This is ridiculous”

Some years ago I helped David Mantik by giving him black and white photos (negatives or positives I don’t know) of Zapruder frames he wanted to study. This was back in the days before Mantik came up with one of his Zapruder fakery claims that was quickly refuted by Clint Bradford; it had something to do with “ghost images.” So Horne and Mantik are saying there was some funny business concerning frames 317 and 329... that Thompson didn’t give them to Mantik and that means Thompson didn’t copy them from LIFE’s transparencies and that means that they were missing from LIFE’s collection in November 1966 and that means the Zapruder film was faked! “But that’s ridiculous,” I said to myself, “because I used those very frames to make measurements and published those measurements in Six Seconds. What did Horne and Mantik believe... that I just pulled the measurement for those frames out of thin air?

So I went up in the attic and pulled out the box with the 8" by 10" prints used to measure the movement of JFK’s head. They were all there, frames 300 through 333, all with the original measuring marks on them. Here’s a scan of frame 317:

You would think, before using in Horne’s book the fact that Mantik was missing a couple of frames years after I did him a favor, they would have done me the favor of calling me up and asking me if I had the frames they were missing. Of course not. That might show that their purported “fact” was a non-fact.

While I had the box down from the attic, I started looking through the transparencies I had made that night in November 1966. I had been using a Nikon camera with perhaps (I’m not sure.) a 100 mm. lens and a copying stand. LIFE’s 4" by 5" transparencies were supposed to have been made from the original film. I set up the copying stand with the camera. Then I then focused on a transparency and figured out what should be the correct exposure. I don’t recall whether I varied exposures during the copying process. I was using Plus X for the black and white exposures and Extachrome for the color transparencies.

I found two close-up Ektachrome exposures of Z 317. By comparing the coverage of the frame I can tell they were separate exposures that night. They are close-ups because the condition of JFK’s head and its position were the critical elements. I haven’t a clue what Doug Horne saw in Hollywood (a scan of a 4th or 5th generation copy of Z 317) but I know what I was able to examine with a jewelers loup. They weren’t the same at all.

First of all, there’s no great change in the appearance of the back of JFK’s head between 314 and 319. It’s in shadow and the intensity of the shadow may change a bit as his head changes position vis a vis the sun. But there’s no significant change in appearance in 317. If some black, painted-on blog appeared in 317 it would be quite different from the frames around it. It isn't. Horne says “the hair was very brown, or perhaps a cross between auburn and light gray.” I don’t see any gray at all but brown with an auburn tone might be about right. What clearly is irretrievably not there is what Horne described as “a jet black patch with very straight artificial edges that appeared to be artwork to me, like opaque black paint placed on top of the natural image of his hair. It was as if a trapezoid (the black patch) with impossibly straight edges had been wrapped around the back of JFK’s head...” The back of the head in is in shadow so it is darker than the side or top. But there is no “jet black patch with very straight artificial edges.” I may be pressing my own eyes but sometimes it seems to me I can see the texture of hair in the shadow. There is nothing artificial-looking about the back of JFK’s head and it’s even possible to pick up a highlight here and there in what Horne calls his “jet black patch.”

Let’s be clear. I’m not saying that Horne is lying when he tells us what he observed in Hollywood. All I’m saying is that my close-up transparencies of Z 317 taken in November 1966 from LIFE’s 4" by 5" transparencies show a discernibly different picture than the one Horne describes. I know the provenance of my transparencies because I took them. I know transparencies don’t get better over time they get worse. Still, my transparencies don’t show anything like what Doug Horne has described.

I just looked at them again on a little light table I constructed. Folks this is really ridiculous. It isn’t even close. The sooner someone can publish good scans of the MPI transparencies the sooner we can put this little claim to bed.

Josiah Thompson

So, do you think that is what happened, Pamela? Are you willing to sign on... because that is precisely what Doug Horne tells us he believes. Instead of confronting this obvious point you start claiming "bias" on my part. Once again you seem to be transfixed in talking about who says something rather than about what is said. Maybe that's easier for you.

My bet is the car was going between 8 and 12 mph.

Josiah Thompson

About the time William Greer brings the car to a halt and turns around and to blast the President in the head with a nickel plated revolver, Mary Moorman jumps into the street. Officers Martin and Hargis veer their cycles sharply to the right to avoid hitting her.[/b]

This, of course, is preposterous. I read this and I’m more than just a wee bit sad for Doug Horne. He’s put many hours into this and I was hoping to have a more reliable guide for the medical evidence. As yet, these are only probes into a huge manuscript. But sadly, when I read a passage like that above I have to say to myself, "Same old.... same old." This is the same old conspiracy theorizing that we've had more than enough of over the last decade. It gets us nowhere because the problems with the evidence it cites are so obvious. Let's hope he's much better with the medical evidence.

Unfortunately, everyone knows your bias, Tink. You really don't have to spend any more energy in your bashing of Doug Horne's book. We get it.

And, as far as the limo stopping, have you counted how many frames Greer is facing the rear of the limo? Just how far and fast do you think the car was going during those frames?

Doug Weldon

Barb:

I received your message. I will try to get the cd out to you in the next couple of days. I am hopeful our postings can be helptul to everyone. I must admit that I had some harsh feelings about you and Jerry when you both posted:

The predictables...Fetzer and White, lauded her for that post ...lol.

It's funny because they do not like Pamela ... she is the nemesis of

their hero Doug Weldon. It's such a 2 faced game, which Pamela plays

too, as all here already know .... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What's funny is that now Weldon has come forth complaining about our

article, and it is Tink and Jerry and I taking Weldon on ... him being

very critical of Pamela. So maybe Tink and Jerry and I will be

Pamela's new best friends now....hahahaha!

Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community and your efforts should be recognized and applauded

I sometimes come on strong becuase I have strong feelings about the people and evidence involved in this matter. I will ask hard questions but welcome the same in return. Please tell me if I cross a line because I do not intend to do so. I do not proclaim myself as an expert "on" anything except "on", not "in" my own opinion. When I began this venture in 1978 I only wanted to discover a truth for myself. That has been my gameplan. It has not been for my own notierity or to see how many people I could convince.

My best,

Doug Weldon

I've been sitting on the sidelines and listening intently. You should know, Doug, that when I said I wanted to "investigate" Glanges I meant nothing serious or sinister. I had not a clue who she was. I think Pamela said she was a nursing student. Probably, I should have said "I want to find out who Glanges is. I've never heard of her before." That would have expressed my meaning more accurately.

Here's a really simple view of how I see it: Altgens 5 shows an undamaged windshield at Z 255. Altgens 6 shows the windshield damaged subsequent to the head shot. The placement and form of the damage seen in Altgens 6 is replicated in the Frazier photo of damage taken a few hours later. Since Dudman claimed in the New Republic he had seen a hole in the windshield, it was only natural and proper for Rowley's report that came out later to stress the reports of agents who had passed their hands over the damage and found there was no through-and-through hole. Dudman and Taylor are the most persuasive witnesses for a through-and-through hole. Both have made it clear that they did not observe a through-and-through hole. This seems to form a kind of comprehensive package. On the other side are the witnesses you mentioned. I don't believe that just because someone is a police officer they are a trained observer.

I guess I'm just wondering why on balance you weigh this evidence so differently.

I too have enjoyed listening in on your conversation with Barb and Jerry. Not only civil conversation and discussion, but discussion between smart people who are without guile.

Josiah Thompson

quote name='William Kelly' date='Jan 13 2010, 01:53 AM' post='178768']

I think that in misrepresenting Doug Horne's true beliefs, James Gordon has exposed himself as a disinformation agent intent on discrediting Doug Horne's work, and that everything else he says should be ignored, and that everything else he has to say is worthless propaganda.

BK

As a fellow disinformation agent I will assist James Gordon in discrediting Doug Horne's work by quoting verbatim one of the examples given by Gordon. Two disinformation agents working together are always more effective.

Here's the full quote of one of the examples given by James Gordon along with a commentary:

"A prominent researcher I know (and I know several, do not assume that his identity is a “given”) videotaped an interview he conducted with one of the Air Force One stewards — a black man — shortly before the steward died. The steward related (on videotape) that on the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Love Field, agent Clint Hill was changing his shirt (which was covered with the President’s blood) and in a moment of complete honesty, while being assisted by the steward with his change of wardrobe, confided to the steward that when he jumped onto the back of the limousine “the driver had his gun out and it was pointed at my face.” As the interview was related to me, Clint Hill was quite shaken by what he saw, for the implications were obvious. Hill’s descriptions of the sound of the head shot(s), in both his written statement and in his Warren Commission testimony, were consistently that it resembled the sound a revolver makes when it is fired into a hard object, as I discussed extensively in Chapter 13. Now you know the rest of the story. I personally believe this hearsay account, which is why I have taken the reports of a left temporal entry wound from Parkland so seriously in this book Bertha Lozano, smelled “smoke” (i.e gunpowder) when Kennedy and Connally were rushed past her on gurneys to the trauma stations for treatment. The videotaped interview of the steward also provides independent corroboration Hugh Betzner’s account in his Sheriff Department affidavit of November 22, 1963 that he saw a nickel [plated] revolver in someone’s hand inside the limousine during the assassination, and is consistent with Jean Hill’s account in her November 22, 1963 affidavit that some men in plain clothes were ‘shooting back’ [at the assassins]. Furthermore, since the Zapruder film does not depict Greer holding a handgun and pointing it at President Kennedy, I am even more persuaded that the film has been altered — to remove not only the brief car stop, but what happened during the car stop." [emphasis in original; Horne, Volume V, pp.1415-1416.]

This is the passage that James Gordon referred to. So let’s read it carefully.

Commentary:

Apparently Horne has a friend whom he names “a prominent researcher.” This friend told Horne that he videotaped an Air Force One steward who claimed that Clint Hill told him that “the driver had his gun out and it was pointed at my face.” First off, Horne has never seen this interview. It “was related to me, says Horne, by his friend. Hence, the quote and everything else was what Horne’s friend told him. And who was the steward? What was his name and was he really a steward on Air Force One? Is his name listed as one of the stewards? Has anyone asked or tried to check this? Secondly, all these purported accounts of Greer turning around and icing the President have Greer using a chrome or “nickel plated revolver.” Really lousy copies of the Zapruder film a long time ago started a rumor like this. A question whose answer I don’t know: Was William Greer carrying a weapon that day? If so, what was it? It seems unlikely he would be armed with a shiny revolver. More likely he would be carrying a Browning 9 mm with a ten shot magazine or perhaps the old Colt .45 1911 model for its stopping power. No one, certainly not Horne, has even asked this question. Then we’ve got Bertha Lozano who smells “smoke” as gurneys are wheeled past her in Parkland Hospital. No comment. Finally, Horne says that he believes the Zapruder film was altered not just to conceal the car stop but what happened during the car stop! But wait a minute. There wasn’t any car stop. Some witnesses saw the car slow down but not stop. Other witnesses said they saw car slow down and stop. Other witnesses said they saw the car take off. Other witnesses said nothing about what the car did. The Zapruder and other films show that the car slowed from about 12 mph to about 8 mph just before speeding up and leaving. All of the alleged facts that Zapruder film alteration are purported to conceal, turn out to be ephemeral... they may be a fact and may be not a fact.

Combining Horne’s earlier demonstrated belief that Mary Moorman took her photo from the street here’s what Horne apparently believes:

About the time William Greer brings the car to a halt and turns around and to blast the President in the head with a nickel plated revolver, Mary Moorman jumps into the street. Officers Martin and Hargis veer their cycles sharply to the right to avoid hitting her.

This, of course, is preposterous. I read this and I’m more than just a wee bit sad for Doug Horne. He’s put many hours into this and I was hoping to have a more reliable guide for the medical evidence. As yet, these are only probes into a huge manuscript. But sadly, when I read a passage like that above I have to say to myself, "Same old.... same old." This is the same old conspiracy theorizing that we've had more than enough of over the last decade. It gets us nowhere because the problems with the evidence it cites are so obvious. Let's hope he's much better with the medical evidence.

Josiah Thompson

Ouch!!! What you say is extremely troubling. My take on Doug Horne up to now has been basically positive. After all, he was a line officer in the Navy like me standing watches on surface ships. He surely was there when all this medical evidence came in. It seems almost automatic that the medical evidence is where all sort of things were buried. The only part I've looked at is the chapter on the Zapruder film and that is whoppingly troubling. I keep asking myself, "Where's the beef!"

Up to now, I've thought of Horne sort of like David Mantik. Many years ago I cautioned Mantik about getting ensnarled in the claims about the Zapruder film. I told him that he could easily get his tail caught in the door there because he didn't know his ass from his elbow about movie cameras and movie film. I said that his misadventures there might very well shadow his credibility with respect to the x-rays where he's done significant work. So what happens. Mantik confirms my prediction as we've seen. Up to now, I've been thinking that Doug Horne is pretty much the same, that he can be trusted on the medical evidence but will make wild and unproven claims in the Zapruder arena. It would be a shame if that happened and really good work on the medical evidence was undermined by sloppy work on the Zapruder question. Mr. Carroll mentioned this possibility at the very beginning of our discussions. I wonder if he's right.

I've got all five volumes. I guess I'd better start reading. Thanks for your heads up.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

I feel that your point that some of the weak positions adopted by Doug Horne does indeed colour the reliability of what he has to say.

I have the complete set and I have skimmed through the set. Although I like some chapters like, for example, Chapter 8 on Sibbert and O’Neil in Volume 3 or a good portion of chapter 16 in volume 5 on inconvenient truths or chapter 2 on the medical evidence in volume 1, I have come away from this quick reading quite troubled.

First. This five volume set is around 2,000 pages. Yet, and this I still find difficult to believe, there is no index to this set. Who, on earth, would write a 2,000 page set with very detailed cross referencing and provide no index? It would not be so bad if the table of contents was detailed, but for each of the chapters it simply has a single line sentence. And some chapters are around 300 to 400 pages long.

Second. As this and other threads demonstrate an important aspect of this work is the Zapruder film. In Volume 1 the images, which are all annotated, are all in black and white. And the Zapruder images are so blurred as to be incomprehensible. It is really difficult to see what he is referring to. In Figure 87 + 88, which is a copy of Z317, we are pointed to a solid black patch on the back of JFK’s head. In the colour version of this same frame such a black blob is not to be seen in that frame. I suspect it is a consequence having the frame printed in B & W, but the annotation suggests that what we are seeing is an example of tampering with the Zapruder film. If these frames are so fundamental to his view of the manipulation of the Zapruder film then I would have expected better images.

Third. In Volume 4 P. 1150 we are told that between Z 312 and Z 313 four shots struck JFK in the head. One of those shots was fired by the driver Bill Greer. I don’t know what the odds are for four shots to simultaneously hit an object and at same time. In volume 5 p. 1416 Horne comments that because we cannot see the gun in Greer’s hand that is evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. On the same page we are informed that in Moorman #5 Bill Greer has been washed out of the picture. In volume 1, figure 76, he provides a poor copy of the image which is very washed. In some of the copies of Moorman #5 that I have I believe you can see a small portion of the back of Greer’s head in the bottom left hand corner. The reason why Greer is not in the picture is because he is not in the frame.

Fourth. In Volume 5 pages 1429-1431 Horne describes the Murchison party as a statement of fact. He comments that J Edgar Hoover was present at the party. I believe there is clear evidence that Hoover had appointments that Thursday evening and was very early into his office. Thus making it impossible to attend, even if the party ever existed.

Fifth. One of the main bad guys in Horne’s account of the assassination and its coverup is Roy Kellerman. Maybe I am not as informed as others, but I was not aware that Kellerman was involved in preparation of the assassination and its subsequent coverup. However in this set of books he plays a very significant part in covering up the assassination.

Sixth. The basis for much of the theory of what medically happened is based on David Lifton’s “Best Evidence”, especially the moving of the body into the shipping casket. (At the moment I can’t find the page reference for this. This is one of the problems of a book this size not being indexed) He is no more clear than David Lifton is as to how this happened. I recollect that his understanding is that as soon as the ceremonial casket was taken on board the body was quickly moved and, I think, stored in the forward loading bay. I am sure that immediately the coffin was loaded on the plane that Jackie boarded the plane So I don’t know how there would be time to change the body.

In addition, Horne states that the damage to the ceremonial casket was not done in Dallas loading it onto the plane. It was actually done in Bethesda when the body was moved back into the ceremonial casket after the pre-autopsy.

In another thread we were introduced to Horne’s metaphor of the jigsaw. That is appropriate for this set of books, because it appears to me, the reader, that everything is part of the conspiracy. And so Josiah I agree, in your initial post in this thread, although there is much I found interesting in the set, these above points (and I could have listed many more) make me uneasy of the reliability of other areas in the books.

James.

These are good, serious practical questions. On the basis of such questions, one could lay out a program of investigation. I'm going to try and answer your questions, Bill, as well as I can. My answers are in boldface:

quote name='William Kelly' date='Jan 12 2010, 10:45 AM' post='178647']

10 Z-Film Questions that can and should be answered that have nothing to do with its content.

1) Who suggested to Abe Zapruder that he should do something he’s never done before and buy an 8mm home movie projector and film the president? Why did he do it?

I'm not sure that any of this is correct. I believe Zapruder either bought or was given his Bell and Howell camera. He or the family may have had the projector for some time.

2) After the film was developed at Kodak and three copies made at Jameson, where did they go? The A-1 Original stayed with Zapruder; B-1 Copy went to Life; B-2 Copy and B-3 Copy went to Secret Service. Who at Life and Who at SS physically took possession of the copies and where did they go with them? The SS agent should have filed a report on this. Is there such a report?

Dick Stolley took possession of the original on Saturday morning. Stolley said it was "couriered" to Chicago. I don't know if Stolley drove to Love Field and put it on an airplane. He might have asked Patsy Swank, his stringer in Dallas who found Zapruder for him, to do that. Or he might have done it through a courier service. I just don't know. Max Phillips took possession of two secret service copies Friday night and executed a receipt. I believe Phillips has even testified about this. Others might know. Stolley has spoken often about this and executed an oral history for the Sixth Floor Museum. What has never been looked into is what happened to the original after it reached Roy Rowan and the LIFE team at Donnelly Printing. We know LIFE used a Chicago photo lab to make black and white dupes for their use as they were assembling the next issue. Those dupes still exist and are in the Sixth Floor Museum.

3) If the Provenance – Chain of Custody was not broken, then we should be able to connect the dots and follow the film to where we know it was – Life Chicago; NPIC DC. Which copies went where, and who took them there?

Yes. No one has ever looked into the path the film took in Chicago. It would be very interesting to interview the people who actually worked with it in Chicago. What they did with it? When it was copied into dupe black and white? Etc. There is a whole field of investigation here that has never been touched. Somebody ought to do it.

4) If one set of still photos from the Z-film frames were used to make briefing boards with Dino Brugioni, and that set used to brief CIA director McCone, who was briefed with the other boards and who did the briefing?

Good question! I don't know the answer.

5) After Life purchased all the rights (on Saturday?) and obtained the A-1 Original, what did they do with it?

LIFE purchased only print rights on Saturday morning. See above where I explain that the original was flown to the Donnelly Printing Company in Chicago. Roy Rowan was there on a crash basis putting together the next week's issue.

6) How did the original get the two splices in it, who did it and how or

why did that happen, twice?

My understanding is that this happened in Chicago when they were rushing to put out the next week's issue. The film broke and some idiot lost a couple frames and then spliced it.

7) If there are frames missing from the original because of the splices, are the missing frames in the B-1,2,3 copies?

Yes, the socalled "missing frames" are in the copies. When a controversy developed in 1966 concerning the missing frames, LIFE used their copy to produce frames 208-211 and released those frames to news organizations and to me. I published them.

8) If the frames missing from the A-1 Original are in the copies, then the intersprocket images in the original frames are still missing? Or were they picked up from the editing room floor and are still in existence?

No. They're missing.

9) Was there ever a point after Life took possession of the A-1 Original when all four of the films came together again at the same place?

Not that I know of. The Secret Service used their copies to crank out additional copies for other agencies and themselves. Herb Orth took the original to Washington in early 1964 at the request of the Warren Commission but he would have left LIFE's other copy in New York. Hence, I don't think the original and the three copies ever were in the same place and the same time after two copies left Zapruder's possession and were give to Max Phillips on the night of the 22nd.

10) If the Original A-1 Z-film was put through an optical printer and tampered with then the film in optical printer would now be at the NARA A-2, and since it wasn’t filmed with Zapruder’s camera, but the optical printer’s camera, it should be compared with the two other films known to have been filmed in Zapruder’s camera and differences should be apparent, just as each gun barrel makes different marks on a bullet and each manual typewriter exhibits unique traits. Has this comparison been made? If not, why not?

Not that I know of. I'll let folks who know more about photography speak to this question.

Interesting point. I thought Dick Stolley just phoned Zapruder on Sunday night but did not meet with him. I'll try to check on it. Stolley has an "oral history" on file at the Sixth Floor Museum. If Stolley got both the original and a copy on Saturday morning (in contradiction to what the Saturday morning receipt says), it seems unlikely that Stolley would simply hold onto the copy through Sunday night. LIFE people in both Chicago and New York would be clamoring to see what Stolley had reeled in.

My understanding is that Stolley was with Zapruder on Monday when Dan Rather was given the opportunity to see the film in the office of Zapruder's lawyer. I don't think CBS ever "had the film."

Josiah Thompson

10 Z-Film Questions that can and should be answered that have nothing to do with its content.

1) Who suggested to Abe Zapruder that he should do something he’s never done before and buy an 8mm home movie projector and film the president? Why did he do it?

2) After the film was developed at Kodak and three copies made at Jameson, where did they go? The A-1 Original stayed with Zapruder; B-1 Copy went to Life; B-2 Copy and B-3 Copy went to Secret Service. Who at Life and Who at SS physically took possession of the copies and where did they go with them? The SS agent should have filed a report on this. Is there such a report?

3) If the Provenance – Chain of Custody was not broken, then we should be able to connect the dots and follow the film to where we know it was – Life Chicago; NPIC DC. Which copies went where, and who took them there?

4) If one set of still photos from the Z-film frames were used to make briefing boards with Dino Brugioni, and that set used to brief CIA director McCone, who was briefed with the other boards and who did the briefing?

5) After Life purchased all the rights (on Saturday?) and obtained the A-1 Original, what did they do with it?

6) How did the original get the two splices in it, who did it and how or why did that happen, twice?

7) If there are frames missing from the original because of the splices, are the missing frames in the B-1,2,3 copies?

8) If the frames missing from the A-1 Original are in the copies, then the intersprocket images in the original frames are still missing? Or were they picked up from the editing room floor and are still in existence?

9) Was there ever a point after Life took possession of the A-1 Original when all four of the films came together again at the same place?

10) If the Original A-1 Z-film was put through an optical printer and tampered with then the film in optical printer would now be at the NARA A-2, and since it wasn’t filmed with Zapruder’s camera, but the optical printer’s camera, it should be compared with the two other films known to have been filmed in Zapruder’s camera and differences should be apparent, just as each gun barrel makes different marks on a bullet and each manual typewriter exhibits unique traits. Has this comparison been made? If not, why not?

In this clip of CBS' Four Days in November below, Dan Rather describes at 5:25, CBS having had the film briefly at the time, but could not broadcast it for legal reasons. Assuming that would have been on Monday the 25th and the "legal reasons" would have been Zapruder's contract with Life...

I know that Rather viewing on Monday is taken as proof that Zapruder kept the 4th copy until Monday afternoon, but another question given that Horne sites Stolley having met with Zapruder again on Sunday night the 24th is whether Stolley could have brought an original or the 4th copy with him to let Zapruder show and view before taking the film(s) for good on Monday.

In explaining the very sound reasons why I no longer think JFK was hit in the head from the rear and the front between Z 312 and Z 314 I am very much at a disadvantage. David Wimp offered a very complete, detailed, mathematically correct account as to why the "motion" I measured between Z 312 and Z 313 was in part due to the movement of Zapruder's camera. For five or six years all this material appeared on a web site. In addition, on the same web site were gifs of Zapruder frames showing that all the occupants of the limousine started slipping forward when Greer decelerated the limousine from 12 mph to about 8 mph starting at Z 308. I was disappointed when I went to the web site and found it had disappeared. Hence, I have no way of presenting to you the argument that changed my mind. Perhaps someone on this site downloaded Wimp's material. I also noted that I made arrangements for Wimp to appear at the AARC conference in Washington. He gave a talk there that included this material. The DVD of the conference is available.

Lacking this material, I have no way of giving you the information you want. My silence should not be taken as any sign of disrespect. Sadly, I have nothing to show you.

Josiah Thompson

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

Josiah, I have never been anything but courteous with you on this forum. I have asked you a few hard questions, but in a perfectly appropriate manner. You have ignored me. Why? Are you incapable of commenting on anything that doesn't relate to Jim Fetzer?

I asked you simply to explain why, on another thread, you stated that the evidence for a frontal throat wound was lacking, but that you "didn't know" about the evidence for the throat wound being one of exit. To me, that seems highly inconsistent. While we can debate the case for a frontal wound to the throat, it seems to me that the only "evidence" for the throat wound being one of exit is to accept the single bullet theory. Do you now "not know" about the single bullet theory? I understand you postulated that the wound was caused by a fragment from the head, and I'm not arguing with that. I simply want to know how you can assess the state of the evidence for the throat wound being either of entrance or exit so differently.

If you're truly agnostic on this subject, your answer should be "don't know" either way. I would really appreciate a response from you.

Don

Dont feel too bad, after Thompson replied to my "Double Head Shot" thread he has ignored every post and any questions I have made since then

I guess I have to write a book for him to find me worthy enough of a simple reply

Dean