Josiah Thompson

David, Thanks a lot for giving me a really good example to work with. Let’s take the Jack Bell example you gave and work with it a little. You give the order of the cars and Jack Bell’s placement as follows: (1) Presidential limousine, (2) SS Follow-up car, (3) Vice- President’s car, (4) Vice-Presidential Follow-up car, (5) Mayor Cabell’s car, (6) Press car with Jack Bell aboard. You quote AP reporter Jack Bell as saying in a newspaper story on November 23rd: "Four cars ahead, in the President’s Continental limousine, a man in the front seat rose for a moment. He seemed to have a telephone in [his] hand as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on." Let’s, for just a moment, assume that the Zapruder film was never taken or it was seized by the government on November 22nd and locked away. Let’s also say that we’re trying to figure out whether what Bell reported ever happened. What sort of questions would we ask? How about asking whether or not “a police cruiser” was in a position to be “waved ahead to go on” by Kellerman with a telephone in his hand? Did anyone see “a police cruiser” in any position where this could have happened? Did any of the still photos or films of the assassination show any “police cruiser” in such a position? Now ask the very same questions about the claim that Kellerman rose up in the front seat. All those questions would come back with the answer “no” attached to them. Lacking any corroboration from any source, one might very well say, “Well, we can’t be sure, but it probably never happened.” Now let’s have the Zapruder film appear on the scene and ask it the same question set of questions. Like the witnesses and like the other films, it delivers a series of “no” answers to the questions asked. Yet in your presentation, you conclude from the absence of anything like this in the Zapruder film that it has been tampered with? Huh? Double-huh?? Left with just eye-witness testimony, the government would have come out just fine. There would be all the confusions and contradictions that we are all aware of. What happened in Dealey Plaza would be left in a permanent haze of ambiguity with no way out. That is not bad for the proposed conspiritors but good. The history of the case is clear that but for the amazing luck of Abraham Zapruder climbing up on that pedestal we would be denied most of the solid arguments made against the Warren Commission scenario of three shots from the 6th floor window. I still think it boggles the imagination to claim that conspiritors who wanted to change the film to accord with shots from the rear would paint a patch on the back of Kennedy’s head and forget to do anything about the left-backward snap. Finally, simply seizing the film solves all sorts of problems. It gives you unlimited time to alter the film so that it will accord with other films, photos and witness reports. Seizing it does not mean that you have to do anything with it. It leaves open the possibility, as I outlined earlier, that it could become missing through various ruses later on. Seizure leaves all this open and would not have thrown up any red flags in 1963. The alteration claim assumes that the conspiritors concerned about the film were both stupid and ineffective... stupid because they didn’t choose to just seize the film and keep all their options open; ineffective because they painted in the back of Kennedy’s head and left the shocking head-snap in where it stood out like a sore thumb. Anyhow, it’s always fun to discuss things with you. I always end up learning something. JT IMHO: the Zapruder film was altered to create evidence that would be considered superior to the eyewitness accounts. Without a film which could function as a "gold standard" (of sorts), the eyewitnesses testimony would rule the day, and that would lead one to conclude (for example) that the car stopped--and that would immediately implicate the Secret Service. That could not be permitted; ergo, films had to be altered. If all those eye-witnesses are correct, then that was certainly a primary motive for the "editing"--and I'm putting the word in quotes, because I no longer believe mere "editing" explains what we have here. In any event, once one is faced with eliminating the car stop, then simple physics--i.e., Rate x time = distance--results in a most uncomfortable fact: that the car-stop (or even a serious slow down) can not be eliminated without introducing, as an artifact, an acceleration in the backward motion of JFK's body. There is really no way around that; unless one completely redraws all the imagery. And that's why I believe today--and have for many years--that the backward "snap" is an artifact of the editing/fabrication of the film. But let's move on to another matter--and why I deliberately inserted the word "fabrication." Consider the account of a credible witness, AP Reporter Jack Bell, who was in the back seat of the press car, just behind Mayor Cabell's car (which was behind the LBJ followup car "Varsity"). THE JACK BELL ACCOUNT Here is what Jack Bell wrote, as it appeared in the NY Times of Saturday morning, November 23, 1963: "Four cars ahead, in the President’s Continental limousine, a man in the front seat rose for a moment. He seemed to have a telephone in [his] hand as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on." Nowhere in the existing film is any footage showing this event; i.e., showing Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who was the senior agent in charge, standing up, or "rising" for a moment, with a telephone in his hand, "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on." Not only is there no image of Kellerman rising, there is definitely no image of him "waving" to a police cruiser "to go on." Did AP reporter Jack Bell imagine this? Was he just confused? Or is this another fact that --somehow--been consigned to the dustbin of history (Trotsky's phrase), because of the "editing" of the Zapruder film. So now we come face to face with the serious nature of the problem, and why I am putting the word "editing" in quotes. I have examined this film meticulously, frame by frame. There is not the slightest hint that the image of Roy Kellerman rises, or shows him "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead." Yet we do have plenty of images of Kellerman, after JFK has been hit in the head. So. . . what's going on here? What happened to that event? How was it made into a "non-event"? If what Jack Bell saw actually happened, then the extant "Zapruder film" has to be more than merely "edited." There has to be some serious fabrication, and graphics performed, in order that (a) an event that what was originally present to have disappeared, and then (b ) for the sequence of images we have of Kellerman to appear as they do: crouched over for some frames, perhaps on the radio, but certainly not "rising" up, or waving to the police cruiser up ahead, to move on. But back to basics: If this film had been altered (and/or fabricated) in a manner that was "satisfactory", it would not have been locked up by Life, for 12 years. Furthermore: the number "12 years" is also misleading. Had Robert Groden not made copies from the 35mm copies made by Moses Weitzman, and then broadcast the Z fim on national TV (on Geraldo, March, 1975), the Zapruder film might have remained under wraps many years beyond March 1975. Without that national broadcast, and the subsequent public outcry, I wonder whether there would ever have been an HSCA investigation. NOT A PERFECT CRIME Ultimately, the answer to the question you pose is that this was not a "perfect crime"--far from it--but that the imperfections were sufficiently hidden, and submerged, that they only surfaced over time. Body alteration and film alteration are two of those major areas. My book --focused on autopsy falsification via body alteration--was published in January 1981; and as far as film alteration goes, that has really only gotten traction with the advent of the Internet and then YouTube. Without these technical advances, there would be no "community" to debate these matters, because there would be no way of "video file sharing." I faced this problem when writing BEST EVIDENCE and that's why the insights I had re Zapruder film alteration--insights going back to 1970/71 when I was able to examine the key Weitzman materials at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life-- were put in a 1100 word footnote in Chapter 24. As a practical matter, there was simply no way to demonstrate what was in "the film" in book format. Going back to the mid-sixties: I'm sure you remember the "good ole days" when simply attempting to prove there was a movement between frames 312 and 313 meant going to the National Archives, and bringing 35 mm slide projectors, and perhaps holding forth to three or four others who were also willing to travel by train to Washington, meet you there, and discuss what these images meant. That was the age of "Pony Express" when it came to discussing and debating the Zapruder film. At the end of such a session, maybe five people would be "enlightened" and maybe they would "pass the word" to others, by snail mail. Now, the debate has advanced to a whole different level. I would hope that people are starting to understand that getting to the bottom of what happened in Dallas means identifying what evidence has been falsified, and how that was accomplished--i.e., in "real time." Because what we now have before us is a false history, and a fair amount of bogus evidence. That's what the "conspiracy to kill Kennedy" was all about--not just murdering the man, but then falsifying the facts about how he died. And this doesn't just apply to whether a rifle and three shells were placed by a phony sniper's nest, and whether the autopsy was deliberately falsified--but whether films of the event were (if necessary) altered as well. DSL 1/20/12; 3:45 AM Los Angeles, CA

A Simple Question The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened. Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit. But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film. Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head? JT

"It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames." You recall that John Costella found the shadow at the back of JFK's head not to be "the blackest area in the frames" in the very excellent upstream copy of 317 provided by David Lifton. JT It is definitely a 3rd generation copy. Doug Horne has also confirmed the same. He inadvertently said 5th generation in his book. Anyone can obtain a 3rd generation copy from the archives. I don't believe they even offer a 5th generation copy. Of course, you might be able to ask them to make one for you and wait for it, I suppose. Another problem with the idea that this "patch effect" would merely be the product of "downstream" copying is that, except for the rear blowout area of JFK's head, we do not see this patchwork effect anywhere. This is significant, Tink. It is not rational to arbitrarily conclude that this so-called "downstream degeneration" of the copy would randomly select ONLY the reported BLOWOUT area of JFK's head in which to manifest itself. It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames. There are many other shadowed areas with which to compare this anomaly. None of them are even remotely close. Indeed, those areas (like 317) are most closely compared to the edge of the frame, which is outside of the exposure! This "back of head blackout" occurs in several frames.

It's nice of you to offer the invitation. One benefit would be that you and I would get a chance to meet after all these years taking shots at each other. But no I don't want to spend the time and the money. Why? Well, it's pretty clear what I'd find there... exactly what you have said I'll find there, frame 317 with some patch effects. Since we've already seen that the more downstream a copy is, the more it shows patch effect, I wouldn't expect to find anything new. I am curious though. You spent a fair amount of time with Sydney Wilkinson. What did she say about the claim from Block that her copy is really a third generation copy and not a 5th generation copy as Doug Horne wrote a couple of years ago? Given what we know of how the Archives copies were generated I'm trying to figure this out. Can you help me? JT

(2) Thompson, in quoting Scally, has reversed the true sequence of events.... In a series of audio recordings that were made in 2009, and in a recent HD video interview conducted in July of 2011, Dino Brugioni stated unequivocally that his event commenced Saturday night, 23 November 1963. There is no doubt in his mind of this whatsoever. Furthermore, both McMahon and Hunter have stated that their event took place "a couple of days after the assassination, but before the funeral", which places it at Sunday night--THE NIGHT FOLLOWING THE DINO BRUGIONI EVENT--and the day before the formal state funeral. You're right, I simply reversed the sequence between Brugioni's work and McMahon/Hunter's work. Their sequence should be reversed. I regret the error. JT What no honest person would do is to appeal to the disputed film in a desperate attempt to rebut Hargis, Sorrels and Chief Curry, which has now been dramatically reinforced by the testimony of Clint Hill. How could anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of the assassination persist in special pleading by citing only part of the evidence and thereby attempt to suppress the rest? The authenticity of the film is what is at stake, where witness reports override photographic. And, as I observed long ago, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (5 February 2008), if Chaney motored forward, as we know took place from the reports I have cited and others yet, then since that event is not included in either the Zapruder or the Nix films, we know that both of them have to have been fixed, which leads us back to the NPIC, to Rochester and to Kodak. These films did not simply transform themselves! They were redone at "Hawkeye Works", the secret CIA lab at Kodak. As Doug observed, citing only the evidence that is favorable to your side can be an effective way to attack a debate opponent to throw him off his game, but it is not good historiography. Thompson, Scally and Speer are not considering all of the evidence as science and rationality require: they are selecting bits and pieces that support arguments that would be clearly indefensible but for selectively ignoring the rest. It happens again and again. They simply hope that you won't notice.

I took what Dr. McClelland reported and gave it to a medical illustrator who drew the illustration. This is what Pat told you earlier and this is what happened. In 1967, this was the clearest description from Parkland medical personnel of the wound in the back of the head. How could the Moorman photo be authentic if it does not show a massive blow out like this? Easy, JFK's head was to take another shot and then be bounced around both in the limousine and during its extraction before it found itself on a gurney for Dr. McClelland to see it. There was underlying damage to the cranium in the back intensified and exacerbated by a second shot crashing into the back of the skull. All that happened later. Because it does not appear in the Moorman photo and does not appear in the Zapruder film and was not apparent to a single witness in Dealey Plaza... all these facts point to one result. It wasn't there in the milliseconds immediately after Z 313 and because it was not there there was nothing to fix with a patch in Z 317. That's why better copies of the film show no patch and why your pal, John Costella, can find in David Lifton's copy of Z 317 no doctoring. The "patch" is visible only in bad oopies. I've said this three times now. All you do is claim over and over again that the Moorman photo has been doctored. However, characteristically, you fail to give any inkling of how this was possible. If you think the Moorman photo was doctored, then tell us how this came about. If you don't, it will become clear that all you have to offer is your anger and insult. That's not worth much. JT

Apparently, you can't permit yourself enough time to think before replying. You just keep posting the same old nonsense. Your first six points aren't worthy of consideration. The answers are obvious. I will take the time to answer your seventh point which says: (7) The cover of your book claims it proves a conspiracy, but in the final paragraph of the text, you deny that that is the case. The last chapter of Six Seconds is entitled "Answered and Unanswered Questions." The final question is given on page 233 and reads: Question 4: Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the Preisident? The discussion of this question goes on for a number of pages and finally ends with a full page rendition of a page from Robert Hughes' film. The final paragraph refers back to the material discussed over the last fourteen pages including many witness reports that don't fit Oswald, the tracking of a man seen near the 6th floor corner window to a light-colored Rambler station wagon and finally, photos of the front of the TSBD that may or may not show two human figures near the corner 6th floor window. Referring back to this collection of new information that last paragraph asks: What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. It also show that the question of Oswald's guilt -- must remain nearly four years after the event -- still unanswered. I agree that what was clearly meant what should have been said was: "It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy because two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired." Typos do occur and this was one of them. It is also clear that this paragraph refers precisely to the final question asked in the final chapter of the book. To read it as referring to the book as a whole is just nuts. Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., can make up anything he wants to. He can also be embarrassed when no evidence is presented. JT

You lost Lawson for the reasons given. You lose Curry because Curry said this happened on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway and this is consistent with the photo evidence. You lose Hargis because he doesn't say when Chaney accelerated. We know Chaney had to accelerate to get to the position he occupies in the Daniel and McIntire photos. So, after much huffing and puffing, you're down to Sorrels. That's kind of a weak reed to base the claim that the Zapruder, Bell, Nix, Mucmore and Daniel films have all been faked up and the Altgens and McIntire photos have also been doctored. But what about the Moorman photo? Are you still claiming that that was doctored? I'd like to hear that argument. Never mind, you'll simply continue the huffing and puffing. JT

Chris Scally knows more about the provenance of the Zapruder film (the original and the three first-day copies) than you ever will. He knows this because he took the time to do the reading, to make the follow-up phone calls and emails, that real research requires. His chronology of the history of the Zapruder film is showcased on the Lancer web site. I'm sure you remember Lancer... it's only one of the places that have deemed you persona non grata. You retire into your bubble and cite like a litany the names of "David Lifton, Douglas Horne and others." Yeah, they are the supporters of this little side comedy. I take it that you don't know that Chris Scally has tracked the arrival of the two Secret Service copies of the film from Dallas on sequential days where the first was examined by Hunter and McMahon and then, the next day, the second was examined by Brugioni. Ben Hunter actually worked on the film and recalled it "not of high resolution" and said he was pretty sure it had no intersprocket images. If Hunter is right, he worked on a copy sent from Dallas and "Bill Smith" is a figment of McMahon's fevered imagination. But you don't deal with any of this. You just insult people as a matter of course, even when your interlocutor has been scrupulously polite to you. Your claim that Rollie Zavada somehow himself worked at Hawkeye on faking up the Zapruder film is just acute silliness with a nasty edge. But that's your style... when you have no facts just throw insults and wild charges around. JT

Real simple. Note the hidden ambiguity in your citing the quote from Lawson: Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presidential limousine), December 1, 1963: i]“A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”[statement: CE772: 17H632] (emphasis added) Of course the lead car was ahead of the limousine at the time of the shooting. However, as the photo record shows, the limousine caught up with the limousine underneath the Triple Underpass and passed the lead car. From that moment on, the lead car is no longer in front of the limousine. It is at this point, as Chief Curry explained, Chaney caught up with the lead car on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. Hence, Lawson's statement is perfectly consistent with the photo evidence and other witness reports. It does not show the necessity of any faking up of the Zapruder film since it is completely consistent with it. Any honest person would not try to use it for that purpose. Likewise, the reports of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses. What they saw does not prove what was visible in Dealey Plaza. An additional bullet to the head plus the movement of the body in the limousine and out of the limousine could have changed what was visible of the head wound. Since the Zapruder film and and Moorman photo show no damage to the back of Kennedy's head in the interval just after Z 313, since no Dealey Plaza witness reported seeing any damage to the back of Kennedy's head at this time, it is probably true that no damage to the back of Kennedy's head was visible at this time. Hence, there would be nothing in frame 317 to fix. Your way of dealing with this very simple argument is to say that the Moorman photo has been altered to conceal a wound at the back of Kennedy's head. This is just silly. JT

It's easy to "lose the thread" on this thread. I think it has exposed an interesting mistake in thinking. You might call it "blindness to when something happened." One of the quotes given to show that the Zapruder film was altered because Officer Chaney immediately rode ahead of the limousine to rendezvous with the lead car, is this quote from Winston Lawson in the lead car: "A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our lead car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident." (CE 772; 17H632) Since both Officer Chaney and Chief Curry say that Chaney did rendezvous with the lead car, he probably did. The photos show the limousine passing the lead car as Chaney trails some hundreds of feet. So the photo evidence including the Zapruder film plus statements of Lawson, Chaney, and Curry all support the notion that Chaney met up with the lead car after the limousine took off. In short, what Lawson said really happened. It just didn't happen at the time some would have it happen. Remove the "blindness to when it happened" and things become clearer. Likewise, with respect to the wound in the back of JFK's head. It doesn't show in the Zapruder fim or in the Moorman photo. No eyewitness from Dealey Plaza noted it. Yet it is clear that many witnesses from both Parkland and Bethesda saw it. Yet because it is seen later at Parkland and Bethesda does not mean it was visible in Dealey Plaza and should show up in the Dealey Plaza photo record. A lot happened after Z 313 including JFK getting hit a second time in the head and his body being extracted from the limousine. If one pays attention to the time difference there is no conflict. JT

Fetzer quote: "Tink now wants us to believe THAT THE MOORMAN DOES NOT SHOW IT. And I say, given the preponderance of evidence that it was there, which is simply overwhelming, IF IT IS NOT SEEN IN THE MOORMAN WHEN IT OUGHT TO BE VISIBLE, HOW CAN ANYONE SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT THE POLAROID HAS TO HAVE BEEN FAKED? Far from evading the question, I regard this argument as "cut and dry". Give it some thought. HIS BRAINS CANNOT HAVE BEEN BLOWN-OUT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD IN THE ABSENCE OF A MASSIVE DEFECT! It has been said that no position is so absurd that some philosopher has not held it. But to maintain that the Moorman could possibly be authentic IF IT DOES NOT SHOW A BLOW OUT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD would set a new standard."[emphasis in original] Once again, how incredibly lucky we are to have a trained professional, a critical thinker and expert in logic and scientific method, to help us out when things get difficult. On your own, take a shot at figuring out just what the logic is... the argument so "cut and dry"... that Professor Fetzer has persuaded himself of. Might it not look something like this: Since I'm right, says Fetzer, anything that indicates I'm wrong must have been fabricated. Without the assistance of such an expert in critical thinking, we could never have come up with such a conclusion on our own. So, for everyone's viewing pleasure, I add below a copy of the Moorman photo taken within 75 minutes of the assassination by a press photographer while Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were being questioned by the authorities, and, secondly, a copy of the Moorman photo as it went out on the news wire on the afternoon of November 22nd. Go ahead, Professor, tell us how it happened since you are so sure it happened. How did the Moorman photo get altered before it even left Mary Moorman's hands? You appear to be digging the hole you got yourself in even deeper, Great. Keep digging. I love to sit back and watch you dig. And while you're at it, throw a few insults around at the rest of us who don't have your extraordinary powers of ratiocination. JT You appear to believe, nor have you refuted this belief, that Josiah Thompson is/was involved in a plot to remove and alter slides held at the 6th floor museum. The only way Thompson knows there is no patch on the slides at the 6th floor, is because he knows the slides were removed to alter this 'fact'. This appears to be what you refer to as 'his routine'. Anyway, forgive me having the temerity to intervene in order to head off the circular and redundant arguments which will follow, be reported and end up with moderation. I will leave it to you to decide if your approach is appropriate given the absolute lack of supporting evidence.

This is absurd. First, the guy who started all this, Doug Horne, is the guy who holds the 6th Floor Museum 4" by 5" MPI Ektachrome transparencies to be the gold standard: Douglas P. Horne, Inside the Assassinations Review Board, Vol IV, page 1362 Gary Mack replied by email on August 28th [to an inquiry from David Mantik] that the Ektachrome transparencies [of the extant Zapruder film commissioned by MPI in 1997 for its video, Image of an Assassination] were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum and were available for viewing... Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were to be declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than Sydney’s dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way. I am confident this is not the case, but anyone who is interested in verifying the provenance of the image content in Sydney’s high resolution scans of the dupe negative could compare her digital files of each frame with the corresponding Ektachrome transparency at the Sixth Floor Museum. I took Horne seriously and went to Dallas and viewed the MPI transparencies. It was clear that Z 317 and adjacent frames showed no indication of what we've come to call the "black patch effect." If David Mantik claims it is there, he's irremediably, unsalvageably and completely WRONG! So now Fetzer claims that I'm part of some conspiracy to alter the MPI transparencies which are in the custody of the Sixth Floor Museum. So the logic goes like this. (1) The MPI transparencies are the gold standard [Horne's book]. (2) Thompson goes to Dallas and views the gold standard. (3) The gold standard shows the opposite of what we want it to show. (4) Therefore, Thompson must be part of some plot to alter the gold standard. I am so tickled that we have a professionally trained critical thinker who has "taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning" for a long, long, very long, in fact, incredibly long, time to help us understand all these things. Without such a trained professional, golly, I bet we wouldn't be able to figure out anything. Now let's go to the Moorman photo taken at Z 315. If a hole was blown out of the back of JFK's head at this time we would expect it to show. It doesn't, In fact, it shows us just what we see in Zapruder frame 315 taken at the same instant. What are we to make of this? The simplest answer is that any hole in the back of JFK's head was not visible at this time. Of course, if there is no hole visible in the Zapruder film there is no reason to paint a patch in Z 317. Since there is no reason to do it, most probably no one did it. Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., says he won't deal with the issue. Could it be that he doesn't want to deal with the issue because he doesn't know how to deal with the issue? I have all sorts of copies of the Moorman photo.. the Zippo, the FBI copy, the drum scan copy, the Gordon Smith copy, the UPI copy. I am posting below the drum scan copy. JT You appear to believe, nor have you refuted this belief, that Josiah Thompson is/was involved in a plot to remove and alter slides held at the 6th floor museum. The only way Thompson knows there is no patch on the slides at the 6th floor, is because he knows the slides were removed to alter this 'fact'. This appears to be what you refer to as 'his routine'. Anyway, forgive me having the temerity to intervene in order to head off the circular and redundant arguments which will follow, be reported and end up with moderation. I will leave it to you to decide if your approach is appropriate given the absolute lack of supporting evidence.

It's wearisome to reply to questions when the answers are so obvious. I do not know what the Wilkinson copy shows since the people concerned have been sitting on it for over two years. Had they released it years ago, it could have been subjected to scientific testing. However, we do know that, as copy is piled on copy, the build-up of contrast often produces untoward effects. You should know about this since almost twenty years ago you were enthusiastic about Greer shooting the President with a chrome handgun. By comparing images of Z 317 that are only one or two generations away from the original with images that are downstream in the copying process, we know that certain "patchlike" characteristics emerge from the multicopying process. Lifton's posted image of Z 317 and my posted image of Z 317 don't show these "patchlike" while downstream copies do. From this, I infer that the Wilkinson copy may have patchlike characteristics. Hence, Patrick Block, the Director, Sydney Wilkinson's group probably were looking at an image that had "patchlike" characteristics. I don't know this but this seems likely. David Mantik and the MPI transparencies constitute a completely different matter. I studied those transparencies last June for many hours. Mantik is simply and irremediably mistaken and the proof is sitting there to show he is mistaken. You have never bothered to go to Dallas and look at the evidence that Doug Horne and others have said is the "best evidence" with respect to what is and is not there in Z 317. When either you or Sydney Wilkinson has evidence that the Wilkinson copy is a "3rd generation" and not a "4th or 5th generation" copy, please present it. Thus far you have Mr. Block saying he heard this from someone but he won't tell us who this "someone" was. There are differences between Z 314 and Z 317 of course. Do these differences show a black patch mysteriously appearing? No. You steadfastly refuse to answer the most telling question here. I've asked it three times before so I will ask it again. The Moorman photo was taken simultaneous with Z 315. It shows no massive hole in the back of JFK's head. If such a massive hole was concealed by unknown conspiritors through the addition of a "black patch" in Z 317, why does it not show up in the Moorman photo? Again and again you are tripped up by the simple fact that the photos taken in Dealey Plaza form a self-authenticating whole. One photo or film confirms another. Any doctoring of a film or photo would stand out like a sore thumb against the background of other photos. When faced with this simple fact, you start scrammbling by adding more and more films to the list of doctored evidence. You've been doing this for fifteen years. By now it's kind of laughable. Was the Moorman photo also faked up? Please answer.

More rhetoric and bile but no answers: (1) If David Mantik is saying that Z 317 in the MPI transparencies shows evidence of the "patch" at the back of Kennedy's head, he is simply mistaken. This can be proven by inspection... by simply looking at Z 317 of the MPI transparencies. (2) If a massive blow-out to the back of Kennedy's head should be visible in Z 317, why is it invisible in the Moorman photo taken at Z 315? (3) None of the Dealey Plaza witnesses and none of the Dealey Plaza films observed a massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head immediately after z 313. This does not in any way conflct with the witness testimony from Parkland Hospital. After being shot from the front at Z 313, Kennedy had yet to receive a bullet to the back of his head later on. His cranium was undoubtedly fractured in many ways by each bullet hit. The question is whether what was observed at Parkland had to be visible in the milliseconds after impact at z 313. There is no physical necessity to that proposition. (4) Your claim that the Wilkinson copy is not what she claimed it to be two years ago is based upon hearsay from Block who says only he heard it from someone. Even if the Wilkinson copy turned out to be "3rd generation" it would still be downstream from the copies David Lifton and I posted. (5) The copies we posted show the likelihood that the whole "patch" phenomonon is based upon contrast build-up in the repetition of copies. (6) After awhile, don't you get tired of listening to yourself spout the same old evasions and opinions? Your opinions are not evidence and no one pays any attention to your insults. The portrait you paint of yourself is not attractive. JT

Professor Fetzer, I spent two afternoons this June studying the MPI transparencies at the 6th Floor Museum. I spent a lot of time looking at frame 317. It is unremarkable. There is absolutely no indication that the back of Kennedy's head has been covered by a patch. David Mantik says there is such an indication. Fine. Let's see who's right. Anyone can go and check this out. Even you, Professor. If there is a visible and significant blowout at the lower back of Kennedy's head in 317, why doesn't the Moorman photo show it? It was taken at 315 from the left and closer in than Zapruder film. Once again we end up at the same place. Another film confirms the Zapruder film. Are you going to say that it too has been falsified? Good luck. As a critical thinker and someone who has taught critical thinking for a long, long, very long time, you use an interesting criterion for what is worthy of belief. If it accords with what you already believe, then you rush to believe it. If it doesn't, commit it to the flames. Your most recent example of this is your unqualified statemnt that Ms. Wilkinson's copy of the Zapruder film is a "3rd generation copy." What is your evidence for this? Patrick Block wrote in post #308: Yes, initially NARA informed Ms. Wilkinson her dupe neg was 5th generation, and Horne was told this from Wilkinson and published the information in his big book. NARA itself discovered they were mistaken this past year, I understand, and informed the researcher of their mistake. I didn't read this anywhere...it's not on the internet, I was informed of this directly. In short, Patrick Block says somebody told him this but he won't say who. Wonderful. Is that your evidence? I point out again the bad news you received in the past few days. David Lifton's copy of 317 and my own copy of 317 are upstream from Ms. Wilkinson's copy and the "lost bullet" copy. The upstream copies don't show the "patch" which is simply a function of contrast buildup as you go from copy to copy. John Costella did a quick test on Lifton's 317 copy and found nothing irregular. So now you go on and on about irrelevant matters and never even admit when you've suffered some reverses. But that, I guess, is just how a critical thinker like you behaves. JT

There is no question that the limousine slowed. The photos even permit one to calculate how much it slowed. The photos definitively show that Chaney did not pass ahead of the limousine to reach the lead car. This is what he said in an interview with Bill Lord on the night of November 22nd but later took back. Hence, Chaney's later position is consistent with the photographic record. He even tells us in his later interview that he forgot he stopped. JT

Good catch, David. Chaney never said he at any time that he saw Hargis "dump his cycle." I said that and I was mistaken. My error. He did hold there and saw Hargis run in front of him from the left or south curb of Elm Street to the north side of Elm Street. If he had immediately accelerated to catch up with the lead car he could not have seen this. The full quote from Chaney is in the first post of this thread. The point is that Chaney on the 22nd or 23rd of November offers corroboration for what he said in a much later interview. JT QUOTING JOSIAH THOMPSON'S POST: Chaney recalled almost stopping his cycle and holding there for a bit as he recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him into the knoll area. UNQUOTE Addressing the statement that Chaney "recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him. . " Please note that Hargis did not "dump his cycle by the south curb"--at least, not according to the film evidence we now have. Rather, Hargis left his cycle standing upright in the center of the street; then he went over to the lamppost, stood there briefly (as shown in Bell film frames) staring up at the area behind the concrete wall and fence; then Hargis came back to his cycle which was still standing upright, in the center of the street (Hargis' return to his cycle is shown in Bond Slide #4, showing him about to remount); and then Hargis sped off, westwards, towards the underpass (as shown in the Bothun photo, published in the next day's newspaper). To emphasize this point: if Hargis in fact "dump[ed] his cycle by the south curb" (which is what Chaney reports) then that event has been excised from the bystander films (e.g., Bell)--and I have reason to believe that is so. (And such an event, if it happened, would be just as important as the car stop, imho). But let's set that matter aside and return to Hargis, and what he did next, based on the (surviving) photo evidence. . . : Having sped west and gone beyond the underpass, Hargis then returned to Dealey Plaza and, if memory serves, was the first of the three cycle cops to get on the radio (within three minutes of the assassination) and say that he "had a witness" who said the shots came from the TSBD. (Hargis 12:34 transmission can be found in the Sawyer Exhibits, the DPD "early" version of the DPD radio transmissions, and as I recall, I have heard this myself on Mary Ferrell's version of the DPD tape.) This transmission, and those of the other cycle cops, is discussed in Chapter 14 of B.E. My main point: either Chaney provided an incorrect account of what Hargis did (or, if he is correct, then civilian photos (e.g., the Bell film) have been edited, to delete what he described); and, notably, Hargis doesn't volunteer anything of the sort, either. As far as I know, the only cycle officer whose cycle may have tipped over, was that of Haygood, but I'm not sure that his cycle ever actually tipped over. My main point is that what Chaney describes (re Hargis) does not appear on the Bell film. Hargis' cycle (per the civilian films) never tips over, nor did he "dump" it anywhere. He simply dismounted, steadied it, and put the kickstand down. Of course, anyone looking at the Bell Film frames has to wonder what Hargis was doing next, standing adjacent to the light pole, and looking directly up at the area behind the concrete wall on the grassy knoll. DSL 1/14/11 1 PM Los Angeles, CA I agree. This is a terrific find! But not for the reasons you give. This thread began with the posting of an excerpt from the Chaney interview from the early 1970s. This interview showed that Chaney had not initially gunned his cycle and raced forward to inform Chief Curry what happened. On the contrary, Chaney recalled almost stopping his cycle and holding there for a bit as he recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him into the knoll area. Your gloss on this was that since Chaney had seen the Zapruder film he was tailoring his report to the film and essentially making up seeing Hargis cross the street in front of him. Since his questioner was trying to get Chaney to say something to undermine the Zapruder's films authenticity, this seems like a stretch. But the Houston Chroniclen report from Chaney on November 22nd or 23rd makes it even more of a stretch. Let's say that Chaney did exactly as you've been saying he did. Chaney saw Kennedy hit in the head and raced ahead to tell Chief Curry what had happened. If Chaney did this, then how did he see "a policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building." The article makes clear that Chaney "sped toward the lead car" after seeing the policeman with gun drawn. If Chaney had done what you have said he did, then his back would have been to all this. What Chaney said in his 1970s interview and what he says in this report is consistent with what all the films show and inconsistent with the scenario you constructed. But you are right. This is a terrific find! JT

I agree. This is a terrific find! But not for the reasons you give. This thread began with the posting of an excerpt from the Chaney interview from the early 1970s. This interview showed that Chaney had not initially gunned his cycle and raced forward to inform Chief Curry what happened. On the contrary, Chaney recalled almost stopping his cycle and holding there for a bit as he recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him into the knoll area. Your gloss on this was that since Chaney had seen the Zapruder film he was tailoring his report to the film and essentially making up seeing Hargis cross the street in front of him. Since his questioner was trying to get Chaney to say something to undermine the Zapruder's films authenticity, this seems like a stretch. But the Houston Chroniclen report from Chaney on November 22nd or 23rd makes it even more of a stretch. Let's say that Chaney did exactly as you've been saying he did. Chaney saw Kennedy hit in the head and raced ahead to tell Chief Curry what had happened. If Chaney did this, then how did he see "a policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building." The article makes clear that Chaney "sped toward the lead car" after seeing the policeman with gun drawn. If Chaney had done what you have said he did, then his back would have been to all this. What Chaney said in his 1970s interview and what he says in this report is consistent with what all the films show and inconsistent with the scenario you constructed. But you are right. This is a terrific find! JT Tink, Chris posted the article for me (Thanks again, Chris!) and I immediately typed it up and added it into my database of witness statements. In recent days, I have come to realize that Chaney had spoken to KLIF radio well before he spoke to WFAA, apparently within minutes of the shooting. I have added his statements to KLIF as well. Here's my updated list of James Chaney's earliest statements. James Chaney rode to the right and rear of the President. Although he was the closest witness behind the President at the time of the shooting and had a private conversation with Jack Ruby the next day, Chaney was never questioned by the Warren Commission. (11-22-63 interview on KLIF radio, reportedly around 12:45 PM, as transcribed by Harold Weisberg from the KLIF album The Fateful Hours) "On the first shot we thought it was a motorcycle backfire. I looked to my left and so did President Kennedy, looking back over his left shoulder, and when the second shot struck him in the face then we knew someone was shooting at the President... He slumped forward in the car. He fell forward in the seat there." (Note: some sources have it that Chaney mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” and that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..” in one of his first interviews, but I can not find a primary source for these quotes.) (11-22-63 interview with Bill Lord on WFAA television, apparently in the early evening) “I was riding on the right rear fender... We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15-20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. 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 he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we're gonna have to move out." (When asked if he saw the person who fired on the President) "No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.” (11-24-63 article in the Houston Chronicle, posted online by Chris Davidson) "A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin's first shot missed entirely. The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve. The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building about 50 feet or less behind the President's car. From the sixth floor to the President, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated. Chaney was an infantryman in Europe during World War II, with experience in sharpshooting. 'When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,' Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder. A second or two after the first shot, the second shot hit him. 'It was like you hit him in the face with a tomato. Blood went all over the car. There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled 'Let's get out of here!'' Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out. A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building. 'I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area. I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,' Chaney said. 'A piece of his skull was lying on the floor of the car,' Chaney said."

Of course, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., you are unhappy with the developments of the last few days. We have been claiming against you that the appearance of the socalled "patch" in 317 is caused by the successive buildup of contrast as one moves downstream through copies. You have tried to upgrade the Wilkinson scan first by emphasizing the scan number in DPI. But you know the old adage: "Garbage in, garbage out!" Next you try to magically upgrade the Wilkinson image from 4th or 5th generation to 3rd on the basis of hearsay from Mr. Block. But all of this is quite beside the point given what has happened in the last few days. David Lifton has kindly produced an image of frame 317 that was made from a 35 mm copy in turn made from the original. He has explained in detail the pedigree of his copy just as I earlier explained the pedigree of my copy. When you look at Lifton's copy it becomes clear to the naked eye that the socalled "patch effect" is missing just as the same "patch effect" is missing from the frame I posted. Why do you suppose this is? I'll give you a clue. Both Lifton's and my copy are considerably upstream from the Wilkinson copy or the copy used in the "missing bullet." To complete a really bad day for you, Dr. Costella arrives on the scene and delivers a body blow. He tested Lifton's posted copy and the shadow on the back of the head is no deeper than other shadows, in fact, it seems quite unremarkable. Oh yes. There is that other fact. The Moorman photo taken at Z 315 and from the left rear of JFK matches what we see in the Zapruder film. It shows no damage to the back of the head. So not only does there appear to be no irregularity about frame 317 but there seems to have been no reason to have fiddled with it anyway. Being irritated with John Costella and showing your pique won't really change any of this. JT

My comments are in bold-face and underlined.

Thanks, Chris, for your reply. You understand that my posted close-up came from the LIFE transparencies and these were made in the LIFE photolab directly from the originl. The more I look at these, the more it seems to me that I got the focus a tad wrong. Question: Did you post a story from the Houston Chronicle for 11/22/63 giving the results of a press interview with Officer James Chaney? JT Actually the question is should anyone take you seriously? You have NO CLUE what versions of 317 Tink has viewed over the years. You are simply making a baseless assumption. I grabbed my copy of Tinks 317 crop and did a quick Photoshop curve adjustment to it. The file attached is this adjustment. The original image (as seen) was 120mb in size at 16 bit. It was scanned at 4000dpi. It is scanned down to grain level. Clearly this image has faults. The most blatant is the fact that there is a reflection of the camera right over JFK. This is not surprising. Tink made this slide using an improvised copy setup, "on the sly". and he is not a professional photographer. Second the image appears to be made on regular reversal film. Tink states Ektachrome. It appears from the contrast build that this is in fact the case. A professional duplication would have been done on duplication stock which requires tested filtration to achieve proper results. Third the image was scanned to film grain level. This adds level of 'noise' above the image detail that makes measurements difficult. Finally the image appears underexposed. So where does that leave us? Is the image of no value? Of course not. It adds yet another data point to the mix. It shows, as best possible given the faults, what was present in the Life 4x5 color transparencies. And clearly the Davidson image being touted has faults as well. It is FILLED with compression artifacts and it is contrasty. No one in their right mind would say that the 6k scan made by the H7 has no value. Given its lineage it is surely a valuable asset. I for one cant wait to see the presentation of both the scan and the data that attempts to prove the claim that the image is retouched. Sadly all we have now is, "I see it, just believe me." Josiah or Craig, What 4x5 transparencies were used that eventually give us what we see today (frame 317) from Josiah. Common elements seen on the MPI and Lost Bullet frames. I do not see them on the enhanced version Craig created from Josiah's frame. http://24.152.179.96:8400/CA8AD/Common.png chris Josiah, Yes, they do not appear on those two frames. Neither do the scratch marks that the other's possess. Well, actually the scratch marks are there, they have been cleaned up. Which leads me to believe the two spots I specifically pointed out were also cleaned up in those two specific frames. That's why I wanted to know what 4x5 transparencies you used. Now, David Lifton has posted another version which appears to match yours in terms of these marks(non-existent) they are. It appears David and your's possibly came from the same original source? And, it appears the "MPI" and "Lost Bullet" frames could have come from the same original source, especially if MPI did some clean up (scratches eliminated) work to theirs, which I'm pretty sure they did. But they all did not originate from the same original source. chris

Way to go, David!! This is a real contribution to our understanding. Thanks a million! JT I've visited the Sixth Floor Museum just once, many years ago, and have not examined their MPI materials. What I do have are my vivid memories of what the original 35 mm LIFE materials (made under contract by Moses Weitzman) looked like in June, 1970 (when they were sent out to Beverly Hills,and I examined them at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life). In addition, there is my personal examination of one of the Weitzman internegatives in the summer of 1990, at a photo lab in New York City, and 35 mm film copies I made at that time. This is described in my essay "Pig on a Leash," and that's what this post is all about. So let me begin. The item to which I had access for several days--and which I examined most carefully--was one of the best of the half dozen extant "Weitzman internegatives." Let's define our terms. The Weitzman 35mm Internegatives were made by Moses Weitzman (circa 1967) directly from--I repeat, directly from--the original 8mm Zapruder film. So each of those negatives is one generation removed from the original 8mm Zapruder film. What I then created were 35 mm copies made on an Oxberry Optical Printer, made directly from an original Weitzman internegative. Then I had those 35 mm frames scanned at 4k/frame. Let me provide some additional detail (all of this is described in "Pig on a Leash" in the Fetzer anthology). In the summer of 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter (who had made the 1988 JFK documentary for NOVA, aired on the 25th anniversary) was still in possession of one of the Weitzman internegatives--the one which he had used as the source of the crystal clear Zapruder imagery which appeared on that program. (All the remainder of the Weitzman internegatives were --and stil are--possessed by Robert Groden, who has hoarded them all these years; and who has denied under oath, before the ARRB, that he possessed this material. That is false). But let's return to the summer of 1990: As described in PIG ON A LEASH, Richter made that particular 35 mm item (known in the trade as an "optical element") available to me. Working with funds provided by three interested parties--I flew to New York and rented the facilities a film lab in New York City. There, using an Oxberry Optical printer (which I learned how to operate myself) I then carefully examined this 35 mm film element. That examination further persuaded me that the Zapruder film was altered. I realize, in making this statement, that it represents my subjective opinion. Nonetheless, it seemed obvious to me that a black patch appeared in frame after frame of the Zapruder film, at the back of the head. To examine this in detail, I not only made 1:1 copies, but a whole series of enlargements, directly from that optical element. In other words, not only did I create 1:1 35 mm optical copies, but, in addition, 35 mm optical copies at a significantly higher level of magnification than the ordinary "1:1". Only some of my 1:1 material has been scanned--and at 4k/image. The process is expensive. As I say, all of this confirmed my own opinion--and yes, this is subjective--that the back of the head was "blacked out" on the Zapruder film. Since its not that easy (for me, anyway) to upload to this site --due to the size limitations--I am attaching a cropped version of frame Z-317, made from one of my 1:1 copies, scanned at 4k/frame. I would call what I have "2nd generation"--because it is a copy of what Weitzman had, and what he possessed would be "1st generation"--i.e., a 35 mm internegative made directly from the original 8mm Zapruder film, then in possession of LIFE. I believe that this item is considerably clearer than the one Wilkinson has, and is lighter (and hence a tad bit clearer) than the one used by John Costella, at his website. Click on this link and compare: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg Please do notice that Jackie's entire face has no image. This was first pointed out by Jack White years ago, and he has advanced the hypothesis that lots of frame-by-frame artwork was done, and that, for whatever reason, the details of Jackie's face had not been completed; hence, this peculiar image of a face, but no details. I don't know what the explanation is, but it sure does look odd to me. To recap: I believe the Zapruder film has been edited for any number of reasons; and the blacked out "back of the head"in frame after frame is just one of them. I would also like a satisfactory explanation for why Jackie Kennedy has no facial detail in Zapruder frame 317--and that's the way it actually appears on the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film. DSL 1/12/12; 6:15 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Really fascinating! I gotta say, you sure do tell it as it is. The "missing bullet" copy of Z 317 is apparently quite downstream of other copies. When I look at the Lifton copy of Z 317, it certainly reminds me of what I saw in the MPI transparencies recently and what I remember from the old LIFE transparencies. It also is not far from my own close-up of 317 that I'm coming to recognize is a tad out of focus. So let's ask the best question we can. David apparently has a high resolution scan of Z 317. If he agreed to cooperate, what tests would you think might be run on the scan to determine whether any artwork, any patch, had been imposed on it? Perhaps we don't have to wait on either the Hollywood Seven or the 6th Floor Museum to resolve this question. Perhaps we could do it ourselves. Why don't we forget for awhile which tribe we're supposed to belong to and operate as genuine scholars trying to resolve a question that has come up? I'd like to work with you, John, on getting this resolved. If David Lifton would provide also 316 how about stereo pair viewing of 316 and 317? Or if the claim is that 316 has also been patched up, how about 312 and 317? What do you think should be done? JT I've visited the Sixth Floor Museum just once, many years ago, and have not examined their MPI materials. What I do have are my vivid memories of what the original 35 mm LIFE materials (made under contract by Moses Weitzman) looked like in June, 1970 (when they were sent out to Beverly Hills,and I examined them at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life). In addition, there is my personal examination of one of the Weitzman internegatives in the summer of 1990, at a photo lab in New York City, and 35 mm film copies I made at that time. This is described in my essay "Pig on a Leash," and that's what this post is all about. So let me begin. The item to which I had access for several days--and which I examined most carefully--was one of the best of the half dozen extant "Weitzman internegatives." Let's define our terms. The Weitzman 35mm Internegatives were made by Moses Weitzman (circa 1967) directly from--I repeat, directly from--the original 8mm Zapruder film. So each of those negatives is one generation removed from the original 8mm Zapruder film. What I then created were 35 mm copies made on an Oxberry Optical Printer, made directly from an original Weitzman internegative. Then I had those 35 mm frames scanned at 4k/frame. Let me provide some additional detail (all of this is described in "Pig on a Leash" in the Fetzer anthology). In the summer of 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter (who had made the 1988 JFK documentary for NOVA, aired on the 25th anniversary) was still in possession of one of the Weitzman internegatives--the one which he had used as the source of the crystal clear Zapruder imagery which appeared on that program. (All the remainder of the Weitzman internegatives were --and stil are--possessed by Robert Groden, who has hoarded them all these years; and who has denied under oath, before the ARRB, that he possessed this material. That is false). But let's return to the summer of 1990: As described in PIG ON A LEASH, Richter made that particular 35 mm item (known in the trade as an "optical element") available to me. Working with funds provided by three interested parties--I flew to New York and rented the facilities a film lab in New York City. There, using an Oxberry Optical printer (which I learned how to operate myself) I then carefully examined this 35 mm film element. That examination further persuaded me that the Zapruder film was altered. I realize, in making this statement, that it represents my subjective opinion. Nonetheless, it seemed obvious to me that a black patch appeared in frame after frame of the Zapruder film, at the back of the head. To examine this in detail, I not only made 1:1 copies, but a whole series of enlargements, directly from that optical element. In other words, not only did I create 1:1 35 mm optical copies, but, in addition, 35 mm optical copies at a significantly higher level of magnification than the ordinary "1:1". Only some of my 1:1 material has been scanned--and at 4k/image. The process is expensive. As I say, all of this confirmed my own opinion--and yes, this is subjective--that the back of the head was "blacked out" on the Zapruder film. Since its not that easy (for me, anyway) to upload to this site --due to the size limitations--I am attaching a cropped version of frame Z-317, made from one of my 1:1 copies, scanned at 4k/frame. I would call what I have "2nd generation"--because it is a copy of what Weitzman had, and what he possessed would be "1st generation"--i.e., a 35 mm internegative made directly from the original 8mm Zapruder film, then in possession of LIFE. I believe that this item is considerably clearer than the one Wilkinson has, and is lighter (and hence a tad bit clearer) than the one used by John Costella, at his website. Click on this link and compare: http://www.assassina.../zfilm/z317.jpg Please do notice that Jackie's entire face has no image. This was first pointed out by Jack White years ago, and he has advanced the hypothesis that lots of frame-by-frame artwork was done, and that, for whatever reason, the details of Jackie's face had not been completed; hence, this peculiar image of a face, but no details. I don't know what the explanation is, but it sure does look odd to me. To recap: I believe the Zapruder film has been edited for any number of reasons; and the blacked out "back of the head"in frame after frame is just one of them. I would also like a satisfactory explanation for why Jackie Kennedy has no facial detail in Zapruder frame 317--and that's the way it actually appears on the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film. DSL 1/12/12; 6:15 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Nice question, Chris. And here's one right back. In your five versions from the "lost bullet," you have an arrow pointing to what appears to be a black spot an the top of the bright strip which is the south curb of Elm Street. You are right that it doesn't appear in the close-up from 317 that I posted. But it also does not appear in two of the five versions you posted from the "lost bullet." What does this mean? I don't know. What do you think? JT Actually the question is should anyone take you seriously? You have NO CLUE what versions of 317 Tink has viewed over the years. You are simply making a baseless assumption. I grabbed my copy of Tinks 317 crop and did a quick Photoshop curve adjustment to it. The file attached is this adjustment. The original image (as seen) was 120mb in size at 16 bit. It was scanned at 4000dpi. It is scanned down to grain level. Clearly this image has faults. The most blatant is the fact that there is a reflection of the camera right over JFK. This is not surprising. Tink made this slide using an improvised copy setup, "on the sly". and he is not a professional photographer. Second the image appears to be made on regular reversal film. Tink states Ektachrome. It appears from the contrast build that this is in fact the case. A professional duplication would have been done on duplication stock which requires tested filtration to achieve proper results. Third the image was scanned to film grain level. This adds level of 'noise' above the image detail that makes measurements difficult. Finally the image appears underexposed. So where does that leave us? Is the image of no value? Of course not. It adds yet another data point to the mix. It shows, as best possible given the faults, what was present in the Life 4x5 color transparencies. And clearly the Davidson image being touted has faults as well. It is FILLED with compression artifacts and it is contrasty. No one in their right mind would say that the 6k scan made by the H7 has no value. Given its lineage it is surely a valuable asset. I for one cant wait to see the presentation of both the scan and the data that attempts to prove the claim that the image is retouched. Sadly all we have now is, "I see it, just believe me." Josiah or Craig, What 4x5 transparencies were used that eventually give us what we see today (frame 317) from Josiah. Common elements seen on the MPI and Lost Bullet frames. I do not see them on the enhanced version Craig created from Josiah's frame. http://24.152.179.96:8400/CA8AD/Common.png chris