Josiah Thompson
-
Posts
655 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Josiah Thompson
-
-
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'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
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
This is bizarre beyond belief. Having acknowledged that the McClelland diagram is "the clearest description of the Kennedy head wound" (p. 107) in his own book, knowing that the Moorman was taken a fraction of a second after JFK was hit in the head (at approximately 12:30 PM/CT) and that he was taken immediately to Parkland Hospital and pronounced dead (at 1 PM/CT), we know that the observations that I have reported and that Jim DiEugenio has reinforced were made within 30 minutes of the Polaroid. So if the blow-out is not present, then the photo has to have been "patched", just as the film has been "patched" and just as the X-rays were "patched". And now Josiah Thompson has linked arms with Pat Speer in one of the most bizarre performances of the year!
Plus we have had special effects experts (like Roderick Ryan) confirm that the "blob" was painted in (but according to Pat Speer, that is the real brains gushing out to the right/front) and Hollywood film restoration experts certify that the black "patch" on frame 317 was "crudely painted in" (but Josiah Thompson assures us it is NOT on the MIP slides in the museum), and we have had further expert confirmation from Patrick and the Director that indeed the black "patch" is an artifact that was added to the film (but no, according to Josiah Thompson, they are wrong), and we have one physician after another who reported that cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound (but according to Pat Speer, the wound was on the side of his head, so they are wrong, too).
This has to be one of the most revealing threads in the history of JFK research, where two members are willing to ignore the evidence and persist in maintaining positions that have been refuted again and again. Even when it is OBVIOUS that Chaney motored forward before the limo reached the TUP, that JFK has his brains blown out to the left/rear, that one witness after another reports that his brains were blown out the back of his head, which is confirmed by the Parkland physicians and the X-ray studies of David Mantik, where you can ACTUALLY SEE the blow out in frame 374--NO, THAT'S ALL WRONG, WE MUST BELIEVE WHAT PAT AND TINK ARE TELLING US AND NOT OUR LYING EYES! This is the most completely irrational exhibition of the method of tenacity that the world has ever seen. This is completely stunning. I am reminded of something about lunatics and asylums . . .
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
When Vince Salandria confronted you about this, you explained that it was simply infelicitous language.
Here's another example, where you cannot seriously claim that you were merely sloppy with your words.
The guy who is making stuff up is the one to whom I directed seven (7) questions. Where are your answers?
You are a past master of the art of distraction. I asked seven, so where are your answers to the other six?
Here's the McClelland diagram, which, like the Crenshaw diagram, was drawn/authorized by a physician
who attended JFK at Parkland. All by itself, a massive blow-out of this kind, by itself, proves conspiracy:
. . . [MCCLELLAN DIAGRAM]
It was first published in SIX SECONDS (1967), with an accompanying description by Dr. McClelland, and
a comment by the author, "This is the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound" (p. 107).
Just to make the obvious point, since this blow out is "the clearest description we have of the Kennedy
head wound", how could the Moorman be authentic if it does NOT show a massive blow-out of this kind?
Obviously, IT SHOULD BE THERE. But the image is sufficient obscure that I am not in the position to
verify whether it's there or it's not. BUT I CAN AFFIRM THAT, IF IT'S NOT, THE PHOTO'S A FAKE.
-
(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
Because of the seriousness of what Scally and Thompson have been maintaining and to be sure that I had these details right, I contacted Doug Horne to discuss them with him because he is the most authoritative source about the NPIC events as well as many other aspects of the assassination. I recommend INSIDE THE ARRB (2009) to every serious student of the death of JFK. He and I both agreed that these they are--intentionally or unintentionally--distorting the evidence by cherry picking one or two odd and unrepresentative remarks of a witness (Ben Hunter) and completely misrepresenting what actually happened at NPIC the weekend following the assassination. Here are some of the key points that Doug and I discussed in our exchanges:
(1) Ben Hunter only remembered a 16 mm film, but Homer McMahon's memory was better. He remembered two films: a 16mm unslit double 8 film with opposing image strips (which had every appearance of an unslit double 8 film), which he placed in the 10x20x40 enlarger when he made the inter-negatives; and ALSO a 16mm film (a copy) used for projection purposes. That is in the recorded ARRB interview. Hunter was obviously remembering only the version that was a copy and was used for projection purposes only, according to McMahon. Hunter's memory was incomplete on this score, but McMahon's was complete and superior to his. McMahon's memory was generally better in any number of respects (including the number of prints made). Tink and Scally are ignoring the most important evidence--McMahon's memory of a 16mm unslit double 8 film--and are cherry picking one fuzzy recollection by Hunter, which is only a small part of a larger story. This is intellectually dishonest and violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning, namely: that reasoning must be based upon all of the available evidence (which, of course, can include proof that certain purported evidence is phony or fake. Special pleading by 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. Doug made the point of keeping "the big picture" in front of him and his audience, while they are not doing that. They are not considering all of the evidence as science and rationality require: they are selecting bits and pieces that support a debunking argument they have constructed and are selectively ignoring the rest.
(3) Hunter remembered a Navy "Captain Sands" being present. Both an internet search, as well as numerous Dino Brugioni interviews, have confirmed that Captain Sands was then the Deputy Director at NPIC. Furthermore, Dino Brugioni has stated unequivocally that he knew both Captain Sands and Ben Hunter. He has stated unequivocally that neither Captain Sands nor Ben Hunter were present at his event. Since his event was Saturday night, 23 November 1963, this places the McMahon/Hunter event on Sunday night, 24 November 1963, one day later.
(4) In a subsequent ARRB interview (a follow-up phone call which was recorded in an ARRB call report), Hunter told the ARRB that, after further reflection, he actually did remember that a Secret Service agent was present along with Captain Sands. This indicated to the ARRB that McMahon did not "make up" or "invent" the "Bill Smith" story. In fact, it was independent corroboration that McMahon's story was most probably true. The Bill Smith quotes (about the film having been developed at Kodak in Rochester and about having been the courier who brought it from Hawkeyeworks to NPIC) are the proof, along with the changed format of the film he delivered to NPIC (the 16mm unslit versus the 8mm slit) of CIA/Kodak involvement in the film's alteration. (For those unaware of the five physical differences between the two films, see "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication".) Dismissing this key evidence by claiming it is "a figment of McMahon's imagination" is to commit the sophomoric fallacy of "begging the question" by taking for granted what has to be established on independent grounds. That is the desperate trick one would expect from a cheap lawyer--to have key evidence thrown out of court that evidence would destroy his case, if it were admitted. It may be worthy of a Vince Bugliosi, but not of a former professor of philosophy like Josiah Thompson. He ought to be ashamed but, alas, has committed too many fallacies to surprise us.
(5) Chris Scally approached Doug "ever so nicely", never telling him that he (Scally) was an intellectual adversary who was attempting to discredit Doug's work) back in 2010 and asked Doug a number of questions via e-mail. Doug replied to the best of his ability, but was rather floored when Scally later shared his draft timeline and invited Doug's comments. He took a look and observed that he (Scally) had made several value judgements and assessments that were seriously problematic, but that Doug didn't want to pursue them with him at the time. It was clear from reviewing his chain of custody timeline that he was convinced the film in the Archives was authentic and was determined to interpret the evidence in ways that would support his predetermined beliefs. His mind was made up, which led Doug to see no useful purpose by arguing with him. Doug's point was this: Chris Scally is not Moses, and his timeline is not carved upon stone tablets like the word of God. Doug considers the timeline his book--including some of the uncertainties noted--as superior to his and as a far more reliable guide to what happened to the film. Many of Scally's assertions in his timeline, Doug observed, would not withstand cross examination in a courtroom setting.
So we have another installment in an unending effort to promote a version of the history of the film that is not borne out by the evidence. Tink, Speer, and Scally all ignore the most important evidence that proves that the film is a fake. Even in his most recent posts, Speer has grossly distorted what we know about Clint Hill's actions and observations that day, as I have reported them in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" Anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of these matters has to take to heart what Clint Hill has been telling us for nearly 50 years now:
"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.
"His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.
Which of course is completely consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about those events that day about Officer Chaney motoring forward, where Tink has claimed that this happened AFTER the limo had already passed the TUP and that we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:
(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, . . ."
(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when
the Presidential limousine shot off . . . .”
(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there . . ."
Tink tries to override their consistent reports, which make it unmistakeable that Cheney rode forward BEFORE the limo had reached the TUP, by selectively quoting a fragment of the testimony of Winston Lawson:
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: “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.
. . .
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
When Vince Salandria confronted you about this, you explained that it was simply infelicitous language.
Here's another example, where you cannot seriously claim that you were merely sloppy with your words.
The guy who is making stuff up is the one to whom I directed seven (7) questions. Where are your answers?
You are a past master of the art of distraction. I asked seven, so where are your answers to the other six?
Here's the McClelland diagram, which, like the Crenshaw diagram, was drawn/authorized by a physician
who attended JFK at Parkland. All by itself, a massive blow-out of this kind, by itself, proves conspiracy:
It was first published in SIX SECONDS (1967), with an accompanying description by Dr. McClelland, and
a comment by the author, "This is the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound" (p. 107).
Just to make the obvious point, since this blow out is "the clearest description we have of the Kennedy
head wound", how could the Moorman be authentic if it does NOT show a massive blow-out of this kind?
Obviously, IT SHOULD BE THERE. But the image is sufficient obscure that I am not in the position to
verify whether it's there or it's not. BUT I CAN AFFIRM THAT, IF IT'S NOT, THE PHOTO'S A FAKE.
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
Tink,
You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. If you are endorsing this guy, then I KNOW I was right not to trust him.
(1) You have never addressed the five physical differences between the two films even after repeatedly being challenged to.
(2) You have abandoned your "double-hit" theory, even though a Nobel Prize winning physicist from CalTech has verified it.
(3) You have endorse Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), even though it demonstrates that the extant film must be a fake.
(4) You have vouched for the Umbrella man, even though he turns out to be a limo stop witness, who also impeaches the film.
(5) You are trying to pull one of your patented "BELIEVE ME OR YOUR LYING EYES" in relation to Chaney's motoring forward.
(6) You claim the "black patch" is not on frame 317 now, but it was there in the past and is obvious on the 3rd generation print.
(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.
How long are we supposed to put up with your double-talk? Someone is throwing insults and wild charges around, but it ain't me.
Jim
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
-
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
Tink,
You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. If you are endorsing this guy, then I KNOW I was right not to trust him.
(1) You have never addressed the five physical differences between the two films even after repeatedly being challenged to.
(2) You have abandoned your "double-hit" theory, even though a Nobel Prize winning physicist from CalTech has verified it.
(3) You have endorse Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), even though it demonstrates that the extant film must be a fake.
(4) You have vouched for the Umbrella man, even though he turns out to be a limo stop witness, who also impeaches the film.
(5) You are trying to pull one of your patented "BELIEVE ME OR YOUR LYING EYES" in relation to Chaney's motoring forward.
(6) You claim the "black patch" is not on frame 317 now, but it was there in the past and is obvious on the 3rd generation print.
(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.
How long are we supposed to put up with your double-talk? Someone is throwing insults and wild charges around, but it ain't me.
Jim
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
-
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
You must have no idea how much you are damaging your credibility by defending
the indefensible! No one is going to believe you after all of this. When you are
doing your song and dance about technical issues, you can snow your audience.
You claim this happened after the limo had already passed the TUP and that
we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My
three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:
(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief
Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative,
and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we
had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up
alongside,"
(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor
in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything
out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when
the Presidential limousine shot off ….”
(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I
saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-
bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about
this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-
side us and I asked if something happened back there"
I am sorry, Josiah but, as in the case of denying the presence of a black patch
that is obviously present in the third generation print but that you claim is not on
the MPI slide set, your credibility has been taking a very heavy, even fatal, hit.
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
Since Tink seems to have problems with reading comprehension, I have bolded
the more important observations about Chaney's motoring forward. This takes
his BELIEVE ME INSTEAD OF YOUR LYING EYES to an entirely new level.
See the source at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf, pages 85-86.
Tink says this happened after the limo had already passed the TUP and that
we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My
three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:
(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief
Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative,
and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we
had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up
alongside,"
(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor
in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything
out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when
the Presidential limousine shot off ….”
(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I
saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-
bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about
this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-
side us and I asked if something happened back there"
MOTORCYCLE POLICE OFFICER CHANEY RODE UP TO THE LEAD CAR
AND SPOKE TO POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY
James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-
dential limousine), November 22, 1963: “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’re 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 Hos-
pital, and he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the—[lead
car]—to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he [the Presi-
dent] had been hit and we’re going to have to move out.” [interview with
Bill Lord of ABC News for WFAA-TV, as quoted in Trask, That Day in Dal-
las]
Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-
tial limousine), November 23, 1963: “The motorcycle officer on the right
side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward, and an-
nounced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” [Daily News re-
port]
Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi-
dential limousine), November 28, 1963: “I noted that the President’s car
had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us. A
motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is any-
body hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief
Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we
had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car
pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to
pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and
Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready.” [statement: 21H548]
Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-
dential limousine), December 1, 1963: “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]
James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-
dential limousine), from the testimony of Marrion Baker (Dallas Police
Officer, on Houston Street when the shots started), March 25, 1964: “I
talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit
Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. (Mr. Belin:
“Where was he?”) Mr. Baker: “He was on the right rear to the car or to
the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn’t know any-
thing about this [the shooting], and he [Chaney] moved up and told him
[the chief], and then that was during the time that the Secret Service
men were trying to get in the car ….” [Warren Commission testimony:
3H266]
Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-
tial limousine), April 8, 1964: “… when President Kennedy straightened
back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him
and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood
and brain, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that
time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard someone say, ‘Get going,’
or ‘get going,’——” (Mr. Stern: “Someone inside——”) Mr. Hargis: “I don’t
know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Of-
ficer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to
the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the Presi-
dent] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine
shot off ….” [Warren Commission testimony: 6H294]
Chief Jesse Curry (in lead car, in front of the Presidential limousine),
April 15, 1964: “I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards
at the time, and I didn’t know—I didn’t know exactly where this report
came from, whether it was above us or where, but this was followed by
two more reports, and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I
saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-
bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about
this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-
side us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’
and I said, ‘Has somebody been shot?’ And he said, ‘I think so.’ ” [Warren
Commission testimony: 12H28]
Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-
dential limousine), April 23, 1964: “… I recall noting a police officer
pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us, and mentioned that the Presi-
dent had been hit.” [Warren Commission testimony: 4H353]
Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi-
dential limousine), May 7, 1964: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two
more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out of here’ and looked back,
all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some
confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward.
And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand
side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said,
‘Lead us to the hospital.’ And the chief took his microphone and told
them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’ He didn’t
say what building. He just said, ‘Surround the building.’ ” [Warren Com-
mission testimony: 7H345]
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
Excellent points, Jim. More interesting to me is the fact that the authors themselves appear to need to be reminded of the significance of what this means! That the photographic evidence is inconsistent with the voluminous eyewitness testimony is simply astounding. That the authors themselves have abandoned their earlier, very well thought out, positions--merely because the photographic evidence (as it now appears) does not support it--is disappointing. At the very least, one would hope that they would seek to find out why the discrepancy exists instead of simply dismissing it as though it was an expected outcome. It is anything, but, expected.
-
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
Chris,
I am not the only one who regards the evidence to be sufficient to implicate Hawkeye Works in Rochester, where I believe that I am in the company of David S. Lifton, Douglas Horne, and others who have studied this issue. And I am most certainly not alone in finding Rollie Zavada's involvement in this most peculiar situation at least curious and even suspicious. And where in the world do you think the name "William Smith" came from? Was it invented out of thin air? I am sorry, Chris, but I find your attempts to play junior philosopher with respect to the meaning of the word "knowledge" to be uninformed and inadequate. You are welcome to believe what you like, but, for my part, I can see no good reason to change any of my written or spoken thoughts about all this.
Jim
Dr. Fetzer:
Before I begin to address the rest of your latest post, I wish to state that at no time was I making - or attempting to make - ad hominem attacks on either Homer McMahon or Ben Hunter. My point was that, even by his own admission, Homer McMahon was not the most reliable witness, and Ben Hunter did not back him up with regard to either Bill Smith existance or Smith's story about Rochester. That said, if I have have inadvertantly and in any way offended either gentleman, I unreservedly apologise to them.
Now, let me turn to your comments about me. I was not trying to "set you up", and there is nothing "funny" about me, I assure you, so if you would care to withdraw both of those remarks, I would appreciate it. Perhaps you would also like to withdraw your ad hominem attack on Rollie Zavada at the same time? And why did David Lifton get dragged into this?
If you had read what I wrote, you would have seen that I DID offer an alternative hypothesis to the film being altered or created (or whatever word you want to use) at Hawkeye Works - a simple misunderstanding, a simple human error, on Homer McMahon's part.
You said in your reply that I was attempting to undermine you belief that "(5) the party who delivered the fake film said it had been developed in Rochester". You are correct - I dispute that statement, because there is no evidence to support it. There is nothing to support the "Secret Service agent Bill Smith" story.
My interest here is in trying to establish, to the extent possible, the exact whereabouts of the film in the days after the assassination. It matters not a bit to me if someone proves it was in Disneyland - as long as we can state that with certainty, and back it up with evidence, I'm happy. The whole point in this exchange with you was to determine whether or not you could support - with concrete evidence - your assertion in post #4 that "WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE." If you could, I would have been delighted. However, your answers suggest to me that you cannot support it, and that the assertion is merely your opinion. You THINK you know, which is a different matter altogether, although I fully accept that you are entitled to your opinion. Indeed, your opinion is as valid as mine, and mine is as valid as yours - but that, I think, is where we disagree, and will continue to disagree.
Chris.
-
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
Since Tink seems to have problems with reading comprehension, I have bolded
the more important observations about Chaney's motoring forward. This takes
his BELIEVE ME INSTEAD OF YOUR LYING EYES to an entirely new level.
See the source at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf, pages 85-86.
Tink says this happened after the limo had already passed the TUP and that
we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My
three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:
(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief
Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative,
and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we
had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up
alongside,"
(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor
in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything
out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when
the Presidential limousine shot off ….”
(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I
saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-
bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about
this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-
side us and I asked if something happened back there"
MOTORCYCLE POLICE OFFICER CHANEY RODE UP TO THE LEAD CAR
AND SPOKE TO POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY
James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-
dential limousine), November 22, 1963: “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’re 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 Hos-
pital, and he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the—[lead
car]—to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he [the Presi-
dent] had been hit and we’re going to have to move out.” [interview with
Bill Lord of ABC News for WFAA-TV, as quoted in Trask, That Day in Dal-
las]
Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-
tial limousine), November 23, 1963: “The motorcycle officer on the right
side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward, and an-
nounced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” [Daily News re-
port]
Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi-
dential limousine), November 28, 1963: “I noted that the President’s car
had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us. A
motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is any-
body hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief
Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we
had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car
pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to
pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and
Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready.” [statement: 21H548]
Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-
dential limousine), December 1, 1963: “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]
James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-
dential limousine), from the testimony of Marrion Baker (Dallas Police
Officer, on Houston Street when the shots started), March 25, 1964: “I
talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit
Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. (Mr. Belin:
“Where was he?”) Mr. Baker: “He was on the right rear to the car or to
the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn’t know any-
thing about this [the shooting], and he [Chaney] moved up and told him
[the chief], and then that was during the time that the Secret Service
men were trying to get in the car ….” [Warren Commission testimony:
3H266]
Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-
tial limousine), April 8, 1964: “… when President Kennedy straightened
back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him
and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood
and brain, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that
time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard someone say, ‘Get going,’
or ‘get going,’——” (Mr. Stern: “Someone inside——”) Mr. Hargis: “I don’t
know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Of-
ficer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to
the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the Presi-
dent] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine
shot off ….” [Warren Commission testimony: 6H294]
Chief Jesse Curry (in lead car, in front of the Presidential limousine),
April 15, 1964: “I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards
at the time, and I didn’t know—I didn’t know exactly where this report
came from, whether it was above us or where, but this was followed by
two more reports, and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I
saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-
bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about
this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-
side us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’
and I said, ‘Has somebody been shot?’ And he said, ‘I think so.’ ” [Warren
Commission testimony: 12H28]
Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-
dential limousine), April 23, 1964: “… I recall noting a police officer
pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us, and mentioned that the Presi-
dent had been hit.” [Warren Commission testimony: 4H353]
Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi-
dential limousine), May 7, 1964: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two
more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out of here’ and looked back,
all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some
confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward.
And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand
side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said,
‘Lead us to the hospital.’ And the chief took his microphone and told
them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’ He didn’t
say what building. He just said, ‘Surround the building.’ ” [Warren Com-
mission testimony: 7H345]
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
Excellent points, Jim. More interesting to me is the fact that the authors themselves appear to need to be reminded of the significance of what this means! That the photographic evidence is inconsistent with the voluminous eyewitness testimony is simply astounding. That the authors themselves have abandoned their earlier, very well thought out, positions--merely because the photographic evidence (as it now appears) does not support it--is disappointing. At the very least, one would hope that they would seek to find out why the discrepancy exists instead of simply dismissing it as though it was an expected outcome. It is anything, but, expected.
-
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
Excellent points, Jim. More interesting to me is the fact that the authors themselves appear to need to be reminded of the significance of what this means! That the photographic evidence is inconsistent with the voluminous eyewitness testimony is simply astounding. That the authors themselves have abandoned their earlier, very well thought out, positions--merely because the photographic evidence (as it now appears) does not support it--is disappointing. At the very least, one would hope that they would seek to find out why the discrepancy exists instead of simply dismissing it as though it was an expected outcome. It is anything, but, expected.
-
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
Well, I doubt very much that Doug Horne would hold the MPI slides to be "the gold standard" today. If they are so pristine and sharp and their images so well-defined, all the more reason to doubt that David Mantik could possibly have been mistaken in observing the black patch in the past or, for that matter, that Tink could possibly be wrong that it isn't there today. So by simply assuming that they are BOTH TELLING THE TRUTH, we have a prima facie case that CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SLIDE SET. A prima facie case is not definitive but creates a presumption that something is the case, in this instance, that the slide set has been altered. In order to defeat that presumption, it would be necessary to establish proof to the contrary, which I have yet to see. Indeed, although I have repeatedly asked about reports that the slide set recently "went missing", no one appears to be willing to address that question. This case is riddled with falsified and fabricated evidence, which may or may not include the Moorman Polaroid. I have deferred to John Costella because he is a bona fide expert in the area of photography and film, while I am not. Never one to miss an opportunity to make cheap points, I am supposed to be "unwilling to deal with the issue", when I am deferring to John's greater expertise.
But AS TINK KNOWS FULL WELL, we have been round and round about the Moorman for many years. I have opinions about it, which include that, even as I view the version Tink has posted here, there appears to me to be a darkened area at the back of his head. OBVIOUSLY, if the photo has NOT been tampered with, THERE SHOULD BE A MASSIVE BLOW-OUT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD. Many witnesses, including Beverly Oliver, watched his brains be blown out the back of his head. That OBVIOUSLY REQUIRED THAT THERE BE A MASSIVE DEFECT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD. Clint Hill, lying across Jack and Jackie's bodies, has reported peering down into a fist-sized opening at the back of his head. The physicians reported it. McClelland and Crenshaw--and others now, in relation to the ARRB--have diagrammed it. Gary Aguilar published a chapter in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) documenting it. Dozens of witnesses have confirmed it. David Mantik's studies of the X-rays confirmed that it had been "patched". Now world-class experts on film have confirmed the presence of a counterpart "patch" on the 3rd generation copy obtained from NARA by Sydney Wilkinson.
As Josiah has felt himself becoming more and more boxed in relative to his obsessive dedication to defending the indefensible--the authenticity of the film--he finds himself resorting to more and more desperate arguments. This one takes the cake!
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
Gary, Not to suggest you haven't given this much thought, but the black patch was there in the past and now it's not. I don't think anyone has to have taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to infer that something must have happened in the meanwhile. If you don't think that's "supporting evidence", I can't imagine what you would regard as evidence that something has happened to the slides. In case you haven't noticed, Josiah has said ON THIS FORUM/IN THIS THREAD that, if David Mantik reported having seen the black patch, HE MUST HAVE BEEN "MAKING IT UP". Now if you consider yourself to be the ethical cop on the block, THAT IS A GENUINELY OFFENSIVE REMARK. And so far as I can tell, no one has called him on it--not you, not Pat, not anyone but me! The hypocrisy and double-standard on this forum is nauseating, where I offer this as a stellar example. TINK DEFAMES DAVID AND YOU GUYS DO NOTHING. I find THAT offensive. Jim
Gary, Tink has a close relationship with Gary Mack. That is common knowledge. What is or is not on those slides has become a matter of controversy. I have heard from more than one source that the slide set "went missing". I have no idea who might have been responsible for that, but I am aware that experts have visited The 6th Floor Museum and found the black patch on frame 317 was conspicuous and easily detectable. Now Josiah is saying that "It's not there". But if it was there in the past and is not there now, what are we to make of this? I have no idea why you are intervening. The entire case is laden with falsified evidence. Tink wrongly insists the MPI slides are the "best evidence". I have explained repeatedly why that is untrue: it was a sloppy and incomplete set to begin with and, now that we have a 3rd generation copy directly from the Archives, there is no basis whatsoever to continue to tout its virtues, which were exaggerated from the beginning, with frames out of order and many missing frames. So if you know what happened to that slide set when it "went missing", that's just fine. If there is an innocuous explanation, then let them produce it. I have raised the question several times with no answer. But it's an important question. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are doing intervening here. That seems to me to be very inappropriate. Jim
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
Gary, Not to suggest you haven't given this much thought, but the black patch was there in the past and now it's not. I don't think anyone has to have taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to infer that something must have happened in the meanwhile. If you don't think that's "supporting evidence", I can't imagine what you would regard as evidence that something has happened to the slides. In case you haven't noticed, Josiah has said ON THIS FORUM/IN THIS THREAD that, if David Mantik reported having seen the black patch, HE MUST HAVE BEEN "MAKING IT UP". Now if you consider yourself to be the ethical cop on the block, THAT IS A GENUINELY OFFENSIVE REMARK. And so far as I can tell, no one has called him on it--not you, not Pat, not anyone but me! The hypocrisy and double-standard on this forum is nauseating, where I offer this as a stellar example. TINK DEFAMES DAVID AND YOU GUYS DO NOTHING. I find THAT offensive. Jim
Gary, Tink has a close relationship with Gary Mack. That is common knowledge. What is or is not on those slides has become a matter of controversy. I have heard from more than one source that the slide set "went missing". I have no idea who might have been responsible for that, but I am aware that experts have visited The 6th Floor Museum and found the black patch on frame 317 was conspicuous and easily detectable. Now Josiah is saying that "It's not there". But if it was there in the past and is not there now, what are we to make of this? I have no idea why you are intervening. The entire case is laden with falsified evidence. Tink wrongly insists the MPI slides are the "best evidence". I have explained repeatedly why that is untrue: it was a sloppy and incomplete set to begin with and, now that we have a 3rd generation copy directly from the Archives, there is no basis whatsoever to continue to tout its virtues, which were exaggerated from the beginning, with frames out of order and many missing frames. So if you know what happened to that slide set when it "went missing", that's just fine. If there is an innocuous explanation, then let them produce it. I have raised the question several times with no answer. But it's an important question. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are doing intervening here. That seems to me to be very inappropriate. Jim
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.
In post #466, I asked you a few questions about your absurd suggestion in post #369 that David Mantik was "making up" what he saw on the MPI slides when he visited The 6th Floor Museum and which Doug Horne reported in his blog, which I have cited in earlier posts. But you have not responded to them. I have repeated them in my most recent post #513. I think it's time you answered them.
(1) If you think David "just made this up", then do you think the same about Patrick Block?
(2) If you think David "just made this up", then do you think the same about the Director he cites?
(3) If you think David "just made this up", then do you think the same about Sydney Wilkinson's group?
(4) If you think David "just made this up", then will you say the same about everyone who sees a black patch?
(5) Do you really claim that you see NO difference between Z-314 (and earlier frames) in comparison with frame 317?
(6) Do you really believe that the five individuals who have seen a different and probably authentic Z-film also "made that up"?
(7) If the HD scan from the Archives (third generation) shows a black patch but the MPI images do not, then what is that going to mean?
-
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
Surely you jest! This is past the point of ridiculous. David Mantik is a scrupulous, painstaking and careful scholar. You cannot even reconcile the subtitle of your own book with the content of your final paragraph. You praise Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), but cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that it contradicts the authenticity of the film. You weigh in on behalf of Louis Witt as the Umbrella man, but ignore that he is a limo stop witness. You keep insisting that the MPI slides are the ultimate evidence, when we know that they may have been subjected to revision while under the control of The 6th Floor Museum, whose curator, Gary Mack, is an ally of yours. We know that the best copy of the film is the 3rd generation copy obtained by Sydney Wilkinson directly from NARA, while the MPI slides appear to have been different places at different times. I am quite sure that what David observed--the black patch on frame 317--was there when he studied that frame--and of course it is completely conspicuous in that 3rd generation copy the Hollywood group has been studying. You say I have had "a bad week", but frankly I have never felt better. Many students here are finally taking seriously the massive evidence of the blow-out to the back of the head, where we have witness after witness; the reports of the physicians from Parkland, who were consistent about cerebral as well as cerebellar tissue extruding from the wound; the studies of the X-rays, which demonstrated that the blow-out had been "patched"; and of course frame 374, where we can actually view the blow-out in a frame that they apparently overlooked, frame 374.
Now you come onto this forum and create this thread, confident that you can continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the members. You are most skillful in shifting the burden of proof as though we had not already proven (1) that witness after witness confirmed the blow-out to the back of the head; (2) that physician after physician had confirmed that cerebral as well as cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound; (3) that David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the single most qualified student of the case in the history of its study, had established that the X-rays were altered, in particular, that the lateral cranial X-ray had been "patched" to conceal the blow-out at the back of the head; and (4) that we can actually SEE THE BLOW-OUT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD IN FRAME 374. Now we discover what many of us have actually long-known: that the blow-out in earlier frames had actually been "patched", too, by painting it over in black. This has been confirmed by the Hollywood group of film restoration experts and again by Patrick and the Director. How long can you persist with this charade? THESE POINTS HAVE BEEN PROVEN--and appealing to an untrustworthy "slide set" held at The 6th Floor Museum is not going to cut it. If you want to produce evidence that these findings wrong, THEN DO THAT. But you never produce any proof that any of what I have just reported is wrong. And we have every reason to believe that what I have reported is right. In moments of extreme candor, you have sometimes admitted that you are not an expert on photographs or films. You were a professor of philosophy and know essentially nothing about science.
You keep implying that I have been having "a bad week", but frankly, in terms of this forum, I couldn't feel better. I have been in the position to produce proof after proof of how we know that there was a massive blow-out to the back the head (from the witnesses, the Parkland physicians, David's X-ray studies, and frame 374), which does not even appeal yet to what we have learned from Clint Hill! When I say, "You never give me your money, you only give me your funny paper", I mean that you make lots of denials and express lots of skepticism, but you never produce ANY ACTUAL PROOF--OR, IN THIS CASE, DISPROOF. Disprove the witness reports! Disprove the doctors' observations! Disprove Mantik's X-ray studies! Disprove that we can see the blow out in frame 374! All of which has been further substantiated by the primitive black "patch" added to the film in producing the extant version. And when you maintain that, if we go to study the MPI slide set held at The 6th Floor Museum that we won't find it, I BELIEVE YOU. As John Costella has remarked, when you extend invitations like this one, you are certain what we are going to find. The problem for you and The 6th Floor Museum, alas, is that we know what those slides should show and what it means if what they show now is no longer the same. Which means that this elaborate charade must come to an end. You have overextended your hand. Everyone who is paying attention knows your game plan. You have lost any lingering vestiges of credibility. And all because of a thread about "unintended consequences". Well, Tink, I think these consequences were not the ones you intended!
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
-
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
Tink,
Nice argument, except that you have made a subconscious assumption -- which seems reasonable from your conception of the assassination, but stands out like a sore thumb against mine: you assume that the limo never slowed / stopped.
My conception of the assassination discards the extant photographic evidence. In my mind's eye, the limo braked suddenly and came to either a complete stop, or a "rolling stop" (like many people do when driving through a Stop sign).
In this view of the assassination, there are many seconds around the head shot(s), which might be described as "the start of pandemonium breaking loose" -- interrupted only by Greer flooring the accelerator and the limo "jumping out of the street" and off under the Triple Underpass. The motorcycle cops would have slowed, weaved, circled. Clint Hill ran forward and (unlike our current version of the Z film) did reach Jackie, put her back down in the seat and cover the two, as he has said for 48 years that he did. Who knows -- another secret service agent may have crossed between the cars and started running for the Depository (which, from where they all were on Elm, simply means running back up Elm Street -- the insertion of the detail that it was towards the Depository, specifically, and not, say, the Dal-Tex building, could have come after the event, after the Depository was identified as the source of the shots); after all, everyone agrees that some sort of noise came from behind, whether that was a distraction or a genuine shot.
In this view of the assassination, there is more than enough time for Chaney to see some of these things -- that would only take a couple of seconds -- and still drive up to the lead car to tell them that all was not well. The limo may well have jumped out of the street as he was getting there -- I'm not saying there were minutes to spare here, but five or ten seconds makes a big difference. (Six seconds, maybe?) Remember that it takes time for the limo to decelerate, and then to accelerate again (even if it was a powerful engine), let alone the time taken when it was stopped or rolling. (Lifton made this point well in his Duluth presentation.)
I know you reject this entire scenario, but I'm sure you will agree that you can't disprove one part of it by assuming that the whole thing is false.
John
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
-
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
[snipped]
[snipped]
-
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
Pat,
This is a terrific find! Tink has previously graciously conceded that Forrest Sorrel's testimony about Chaney's motoring forward is inconsistent with his position that that had taken place AFTER the limo had passed the Triple Underpass. Here you have Chaney not only reporting motoring forward but also stating that the president "slumped" into Jackie's lap. There is nothing about "back-and-to-the-left" motion. PLUS he confirms that the limo STOPPED. So I think this is a very valuable contribution. Thanks for posting it. There are a couple of oddities, such as the remark about, "It was like you hit him in the face with a tomato", which might refer to the skull flap blowing open. That his brains were blown out to the left/rear is not clear from what he has to say, but from his perspective--unlike that of Officer Hargis, who was riding to the left/rear and was hit with the debris--seeing it was probably obfuscated by Jack and Jackie. I would like to believe there is no more room for doubt about Chaney's motoring forward, which should also appear in the film, but that would be extremely naive on my part. John Costella was the first to notice, where I published about it in "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", OpEdNews (5 February 2008).
Jim
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
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
No, John, you should know better than to think that I would want you to "take sides". That is not in me. I
am taken aback that, in this frame from Lifton's treasure trove, there is so little of value. I must conclude
that some versions of the film make certain forms of fakery more conspicuous. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT
THIS BLOW-OUT WAS CRUDELY PAINTED OVER IN BLACK. I don't know why this frame doesn't show it.
And I must admit that your remarks about the passengers being thrown forward commits a blunder. It is
occurring at a time when THE LIMOUSINE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ACCELERATING. What is the probability
that ONE of the passengers would be THROWN FORWARD when they should be being PULLED BACK?
And in this case there are SEVERAL. I don't know why, mate, but I fault you because you are wrong.
In fact, unless I have missed something, I don't see where you have even acknowledge that the blow out
has been patched, when that is OBVIOUS. So I have several difficulties with you in this exchange, none
of which have to do with any presumptions about "taking sides". My inference is that we have reached
the limits of your competence and that the Hollywood experts, Pat and the Director, simply know more.
And scientific reasoning is based upon observation, measurement, and experiment--but all considered
within the framework known as "inference to the best explanation". Given your agreement with me on
(1), (2), and (3), it should already be apparent that the blow-out was patched. The oddity, as I see it, is
that the Lifton frame does not make it show up better and that you seem reluctant to admit the obvious.
So if your position is that you were simply reflecting on the relative lack of strong contrast in Lifton's
frame, then I reiterate my question: why should a feature that LEAPED OUT TO THE FILM EXPERTS
be so muted in the case of Lifton's frame? Something is wrong here, where I see no indication that you
are providing any explanation. That rather bothers me, but perhaps the others can explain it for me.
Jim,
You're missing the point. I accepted the amateurishness of the art work when I read the 1000-word footnote about it in Lifton's Best Evidence, back when you sent me a copy back in 2002. I've never stopped accepting it.
In today's jargon, it was a "blink" reaction from Lifton, and film experts who have seen it.
I accept it the same as I accept the "blink" reaction of David Healy, and other film experts, when they see the limo gliding down Elm Street like a gondola down a street in Venice. Such reactions from seasoned experts are valuable. (See the "Blink" book for their power -- and limitations.)
But the next step is to find scientific proof that something is wrong. And that's where this whole back of the head debate has gone wrong.
In the case of the limo floating down Elm, we have other "wrong-looking" evidence, like the front four occupants all lurching forward to a non-existent (in the extant film) braking event. (Let alone all the witnesses who saw something different!) But again, this is not scientific evidence. (Well, not physical scientific evidence -- apologies for my arrogance as a physicist of equating scientific proof with physical proof.) It's physically possible for people to lurch forward at the same time.
So I think you keep mistaking my acceptance of the overall "feel of the case" with my higher demands for something to be declared a scientific proof.
Now, if the back of the head were blacker than the surrounds of the frame (or possibly the same blackness, and blacker than anything else in the film, but not necessarily in this case), then that would have been physical proof. Just like David Mantik's proof of the impossible density of bone in the autopsy X-rays through optical densitometry -- that is a physical proof, and (unless he is subsequently shown to have made an error) is irrefutable.
I'm a little surprised, after all of our collaboration, and your knowledge of the history and philosophy of science, that you still doubt my motives any time that my opinion of the scientific evidence diverges from your own. Maybe I'm more Aspergery than the average bear; maybe it's difficult for some to see me agreeing with Tink or Lamson, even slightly. Apologies if I don't "take sides" as religiously as some.
John
John,
I added a paragraph you missed, no doubt because you were writing:
And I am puzzled why a feature of the film that POPPED OUT to the
Hollywood film restoration experts, to Patrick Block and the Director
of what today is regarded as probably the finest special and visual
effects film studio in the world would appear relatively bland in this
frame for which David Lifton has described the origin. WHY IS THAT?
Now Craig has corrected me (Kodachrome, not Ektachrome) and he
might have explained this, since it may have required Lifton to make
an additional pass. But it seems to me that, if Lifton is right about
its origin, this frame should be sharper and better defined than the
frames being studied by Sydney's group, when it is instead inferior.
If you can account for this anomaly, I would appreciate it. We also
disagree about the vividness and amateurishness of the PAINTING
IN of the patch. I don't know why, mate, but the Hollywood gang,
Pat and the Director are surely right about this. Something about
the Lifton frame suppresses it. This was amateurish art work.
Jim
-
My comments are in bold-face and underlined.
Tink,
"Crossed in the mail", 21st century style. I've just finished my post saying that I think the back of the head is a distraction.
I couldn't agree with you more. Another one like "full frame left penetration" that is now deader than door nail.
I also know that when you go after an issue with as much gusto as "Moorman in the Street", that you know with high confidence that the extant photographic evidence has nothing to hide.
I can't disagree with you here.
I also know (after 11 or so years of it) that when your tone softens, and you invite me to join in with scholarly research with you, that you know what I'll find, and you're very happy with what that outcome will be.
Once again, how could I disagree with you here.
But I do enjoy getting down to the truth, so let me propose a compromise: I'll give you my opinion of the back of the head, on any material you're able to send to my side of the planet (electronically, by mail, carrier pigeon, or otherwise), if any such material has the FULL FRAME at that resolution.
I take it what you are saying here is that you need a full-frame not a close-up to examine. Secondly, I imagine you also need a frame that has not been touched by any compression program.
That's not really what I want -- I'd prefer ALL parts of ALL frames of ALL copies at as high fidelity and resolution as possible -- but, as I said, this proposal is a compromise.
Okay. I'll see what I can do.
John
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. What do you think should be done?
JT
-
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
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
And on the basis of such a GROSSLY INFERIOR copy, he wants to insist that a conspicuous feature that's
OBVIOUSLY THERE is not there? Why should anyone take Tink seriously? He has discredited himself.
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
Mr. Block, your post of Z317 seems to be quite contrasty. I wonder is that isn't because (as far as I know) the scan was made from a fourth generation copy. If everything goes well with this and I don't screw up the attachment process, I'll be posting my own version of frame 317. I made this transparency from the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies in November 1966. It has been in my custody ever since. it is a 35 mm transparency in Ektachrome. The 4" by 5" transparencies were made from the original film by LIFE's photolab. It has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. In addition, my series of transparencies do not show anything of the changes that you describe. The back of JFk's head looks the same in both Z312 and Z317.
We keep going back to the problem of how successive copying of the film introduces artifacts or appearances that aren't there in the original. Since it has been agreed for several years that the MPI transparencies in the 6th Floor Museum are far superior to the forensic edition of the film, why didn't you take a look at that? I did last June and found the results stunning. Like my own copy that I'm posting as an attachment,Z317 in the MPI transparencies has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows.
These discussions have been going on for years. I am certainly no photo expert but I am told that a 3D study of Z 317 would disclose immediately and definitively whether anything had been painted in on the back of JFK's head. Am I right about this? If so, wouldn't a 3D study be the quickest,easiest and cheapest way to resolve the question? You folks are down in Hollywood where this kind of a study could be pretty easily arranged. The rest of us have our hands tied because we don't have the scans you folks keep talking about and are using as evidence.
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
Fascinating.
This is my opinion:
Lifton's scan is almost as close as we can get to the "camera original" film. If I've got the processing pipelines correct, it's one "generation" further from the original than MPI. (If I recall correctly, MPI only optically blew up each frame once, and scanned the results. Lifton's is a copy of the Weitzman copy.) But it was taken from an internegative created decades before MPI's blow-ups, avoiding any degradation of the "camera original" in the interim. In terms of its reproduction of colour and intensity, that's important.
The resolution of the Lifton scan isn't great. A scan of one of the blowups would be preferable, from the point of resolution (i.e. the question of "sharp edges"). So let's leave that to one side.
With regard to the "blackness" of the back of the head, the resolution is more than sufficient: it's quite a large area that we're examining.
It doesn't take long with any imaging program to determine that, in Lifton's scan, the back of JFK's head is not as black as other parts of the scan. Part's of Jackie's hair are darker than any part of the back of JFK's head. And the boundary region around the frame is significantly darker.
I've attached a copy of Lifton's scan in which the intensity levels have been stretched out, for the purpose of showing, visually, what I've just described:
So, to me, any claims that the back of the head is "pure black" do not appear to be supported.
Does that mean that this imagery hasn't been edited? Of course not. Everyone here knows that I believe the Z film to be a complete fabrication. But the "blackness" argument doesn't hold water, in my opinion.
Whether there are the "sharp edges" that make those who have viewed some of these materials believe that it looks edited is a separate question, which might be answered if Lifton is able to scan one of his larger blowups. Tink is absolutely correct that earlier-generation copies must always trump later generations (as long as they can be trusted, etc.). (I tend to trust Lifton's materials, although not necessarily his computer skills. [i've sure David won't take offence at that.])
John
Mr. Block, your post of Z317 seems to be quite contrasty. I wonder is that isn't because (as far as I know) the scan was made from a fourth generation copy. If everything goes well with this and I don't screw up the attachment process, I'll be posting my own version of frame 317. I made this transparency from the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies in November 1966. It has been in my custody ever since. it is a 35 mm transparency in Ektachrome. The 4" by 5" transparencies were made from the original film by LIFE's photolab. It has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. In addition, my series of transparencies do not show anything of the changes that you describe. The back of JFk's head looks the same in both Z312 and Z317.
We keep going back to the problem of how successive copying of the film introduces artifacts or appearances that aren't there in the original. Since it has been agreed for several years that the MPI transparencies in the 6th Floor Museum are far superior to the forensic edition of the film, why didn't you take a look at that? I did last June and found the results stunning. Like my own copy that I'm posting as an attachment,Z317 in the MPI transparencies has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows.
These discussions have been going on for years. I am certainly no photo expert but I am told that a 3D study of Z 317 would disclose immediately and definitively whether anything had been painted in on the back of JFK's head. Am I right about this? If so, wouldn't a 3D study be the quickest,easiest and cheapest way to resolve the question? You folks are down in Hollywood where this kind of a study could be pretty easily arranged. The rest of us have our hands tied because we don't have the scans you folks keep talking about and are using as evidence.
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
And on the basis of such a GROSSLY INFERIOR copy, he wants to insist that a conspicuous feature that's
OBVIOUSLY THERE is not there? Why should anyone take Tink seriously? He has discredited himself.
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
The Law of Unintended Consequences
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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