David Lifton

Your post does not address the question at hand: 3 casket entries, documented by three separate paper trails. You seem to be speculating about what some TV producer will do three years from now. That does not address the issue of what the historical record shows happened some 45 years ago. The issue is not what Bugliosi or Tom Hanks "thinks"--nor is it about your predictive powers. The issue concerns the evidence. The evidence of "3 entries of 2 caskets" is in fact germane, relevant, and --I dare say--dispositive. In fact, 3 entries of 2 caskets can NOT be explained innocently, as you apparently speculate. I'm proud to have analyzed this, gathered the evidence, and published it in January, 1981 in Best Evidence. It was headline making then, and in fact the subject of major ads in the New York Times, showing the same type of photograph I'm sure it was one of the reasons that Book of the Month Club chose BEST EVIDENCE as a selection. Doug uses on the front of his book, and with the caption "The Coffin Was Empty." That issue has never been addressed--and answered--by the "other side", because in fact it can't be. Its one of those key points that marks a clear distinction between the old and the new paradigm: fraud in the evidence. I'm sorry to see that you are more concerned with the opinion of third parties (e.g., what "Dr. Wecht thinks") rather than focusing on what is in fact the best evidence. DSL 1/15/10 12:30 AM PST

"This open embrace of Lifton's theory, IMO, is exactly what Bugliosi and the folks at HBO have been praying for." Oh really. . I'd like to see Buglioi--or anyone else, for that matter--explain the fact that there are 3 entries of 2 caskets. Would you care to try? Here, explain these documented facts: 1) the shiping casket at 6:35 PM, containing JFK's body, in a body bag 2) The first entry of the Dallas casket at 7:17 (with Sibert and O'Neill, and Kellerman and Greer) --which they do not realize is empty 3) The 2nd entry of that same casket, with the MDW casket team at 8 p.m., now with the body inside. That's what was first presented--anytime, anywhere--in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981, and has been embraced (and strengthened) by Doug Horne and the ARRB. And you think Bugliosi et al are "praying" for that? DSL 1/14/10 7:40PM PST

DSL COMMENTARY: As set forth in Pig on a Leash, In November, 1971, I interviewed five of what I shall call the car-stop witnesses: Mary Moorman Bill Newman Gayle Newman Chism Franzen It was pretty obvious to me, from the accounts of these witnesses, that the car stopped, momentarily. My interviews with Bill and Gayle Newman were particularly important. After they gave me their accounts, I pointed out that the Zapruder film, (then) available at National Archives, did not show such a stop. Bill Newman emphasized to me that they were standing right there, that the car stopped, and that it didn't matter what the film showed. One statement from Franzen I remember vividly: that the car was moving so slowly that a man could comfortably walk besides it. FYI: 15 miles per hour corresponds to a four minute mile. Just to understand the key issue: Imagine someone running a 4 minute mile down Elm Street and that being confused with someone slowing sharply, much less stopping. Even 11 mph (the measured speed, during some part of the traverse down Elm) would be far to fast for Franzen to have that perception. And the notion that, after the shooting, Clint Hill overtook an accelerating vehicle--regardless of what the edited film frames show--is (to me) not just improbable, but ludicrous. Anyway, I would strongly suggest that your list(s) be modified to include BOTH Newman's as car stop witnesses. They are both on record in November 1971 as having maintained that the car stopped. As I pointed out in Pig on a Leash, I used a SONY TC-800 tape recorder for all these interviews (except Moorman, whose husband would not permit me to tape, but I have notes), and those interviews are on a 33 CD set that was made for the ARRB and is under seal at NARA as part of the JFK Collection. As far as I'm concerned, the issue of the car slowly sharply (to practically 1-2 mph, at most) or stopping completely, is not a "perception" problem; it is a problem for the integrity of the Zapruder film. DSL 1/14/10 4 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

REPLYING DIRECTLY TO YOUR POST: Craig Lamson: I notice the clear difference between your argument and that of Gary Mack. Gary was claiming that test films were ALREADY shot; ergo, no need to shoot new test films. Now that sounded promising, did it not? But here we are, and your argument is quite different. Your argument: the test films are useless because they were not shot on a full sun day. Now which is it? Rollie Zavada recognized that if enough light was blasted through the lens, AND it was on full zoom, one might get full penetration of the inter sprocket area. Apparently, he got it on one frame with the red truck. But that's not what the Zapruder film frames show--just about every single frame (read that again, Mr. Lamson, "every single frame") is "full flush left" and many of them (if not just about all of them) are "BEYOND full full left." Now what are we to make of that? What is the problem here--my knowledge of photography, or your lack of logic? This is not about my ignorance of the interplay of these various factors, but rather your unwillingness to face the fact that there is good reason to suspect that what is called the "original Zapruder film" was not the film made by Abraham Zapruder, but rather an optically edited copy made on an optical printer, and then reduction printed to Kodachrome II. There is enough difference in "image content" (car stop, wounds that are on JFK's head, but were not seen 4 minutes later at Parkland, etc.) to suspect optical forgery. And one simple way to see if that is in fact the case is this matter of full flush left. An accurate test would include BOTH full zoom setting of the lens AS WELL AS the lighting conditions on 11/22/63. You're setting up a straw man. I never suggested that the lighting conditions should not be duplicated. If the FBI test films were not shot on a full sun day, then new test films would have to be shot. (But please don't reason circularly and tell me that because the U-Tube videos are of such poor quality, that means the test films were not shot on a full sun day. Apparently, Gary Mack believed those test films were fine, thankyou. Now maybe he is wrong; maybe he didn't bother to look up the weather on that day--and candidly, I have not done so.) Have you concluded it was not a sunny day because the U-tube videos are so lousy? Or because you checked with the records kept by the U.S.Weather Bureau. (That would make a difference, I hope you know). So let's dispense with the straw man argument(s), and try to reign in your compulsion to display your erudition when it comes to lenses and light. The simple question is this: when the Zapruder camera is used, and when lens is set at full zoom, and when the light is at a level comparable to 11/22/63, will the camera produce--repeatedly, frame after frame--a sequence of frames that are full flush left, and in fact "beyond full flush left"--such as we see on the frames from the supposedly "original Zapruder film"? That's the test that must be conducted--and ought to have been conducted--before the taxpayers forked over $16 million for what may well be a forgery, an optically edited film that is supposedly "camera original." Sure, I know, Lamson. You will now respond to this post with another effusion of words, designed to advertise your erudition, but it will be lacking in logic, and steeped in denial. You seem not to comprehend that your prediction(s) about what such a test will show are not equivalent to actually conducting the test and examining the results. At the track, do you bet on horses, and then go and try to collect at the betting window, BEFORE the race is run? Are you so ego-centric that you genuinely believe that your knowledge (and predictions) about "how things work" are a substitute for actually conducting the appropriate test(s)? And yes, I'd love to conduct an "indoor test" with the camera (at full zoom) facing a clock, and the minute hand going round and round--and then increasing the light levels, a notch at a time, to see just when (and if) full flush penetration occurs. And when (and if) "beyond full flush" is even possible. Eventually, with enough light blasting through, it will happen. But when will that be, Lamson--after the camera has melted?? We're dealing with the Zapruder camera--this is not the test of a laser weapon. (Do you understand?) So please: stop erecting straw men, and stop using your knowledge of photography to invent excuses to avoid proper testing. And one other thing: should you attend the test, do bring some heavy dark goggles, and be sure to wear them during the test. I know, you'd prefer not to because you may look like a character in a Peanuts cartoon, but I'm afraid you may need the protection, since those may well be the light levels that are going to be needed before "beyond full flush left" penetration is achieved. DSL 1/13/2010; 1 AM Los Angeles, CA

I'm not "speculating' at all Lifton, I'm stating simple photographic fact. If the properties of the image circle of a lens eludes you, prehaps you need to bone up a bit before you comment. It's not my problem the "alterationists" don't have the first clue how this stuff works, that YOUR problem. The test films were NOT shot on a full sun day, as the you tube videos show ( you do know how to read shadow properties..correct?) If the clock footage was not shot at light level EQUAL to a full sun day, they too will be USELESS for comparison for your silly full flush left argument. Why? Because the lens will not be stopped down to the same extent as one filming on a FULL SUN day. So whats the difference, in f-stops, between full sun and cloudy bright? Lets check. Based on the standard sunny 16 rule, of 1 over the iso speed of the film at F16, gives us 1/25 at f16 for Zapruders camera. Since he was shooting at 1/40 of a second (roughly 1 stop difference from 1/250 that puts his lens at f11. Now what are the settings for cloudy bright? Answer, Two stops LESS than a full sun exposure. The test footage from the plaza would have been taken in the F8 range, a considerable difference. YOU want us to believe that there is any REAL value comparing images shot in the f16 range with those shot in the F8 range? And do you have the knowlege to even understand WHY? Unless your inspection of the test films is grounded with a full understanding of the process involved in their creation, we can fully discount your opinions on the subject. And based on your anwers to date, you are lacking the even the basic knowlege needed. Here's what an image circle looks like, just to jump start your much needed learning process. This is the image circle projected by a Hasselblad 50mm lens mounted on a 4x5 Horseman view camera and recorded on Type 55 b/w Polaroid film. F stop is unknown. You can however clearly see that the image formed by the lens softens and darkens as it vignettes at the very edge of the image circle. Why don't you get back to us when you know the subject matter. Craig Lamson: I notice the clear difference between your argument and that of Gary Mack. Gary was claiming that test films were ALREADY shot; ergo, no need to shoot new test films. Now that sounded promising, did it not? But here we are, and your argument is quite different. Your argument: the test films are useless because they were not shot on a full sun day. Now which is it? Rollie Zavada recognized that if enough light was blasted through the lens, AND it was on full zoom, one might get full penetration of the inter sprocket area. Apparently, he got it on one frame with the red truck. But that's not what the Zapruder film frames show--just about every single frame (read that again, Mr. Lamson, "every single frame") is "full flush left" and many of them (if not just about all of them) are "BEYOND full full left." Now what are we to make of that? What is the problem here--my knowledge of photography, or your lack of logic? This is not about my ignorance of the interplay of these various factors, but rather your unwillingness to face the fact that there is good reason to suspect that what is called the "original Zapruder film" was not the film made by Abraham Zapruder, but rather an optically edited copy made on an optical printer, and then reduction printed to Kodachrome II. There is enough difference in "image content" (car stop, wounds that are on JFK's head, but were not seen 4 minutes later at Parkland, etc.) to suspect optical forgery. And one simple way to see if that is in fact the case is this matter of full flush left. An accurate test would include BOTH full zoom setting of the lens AS WELL AS the lighting conditions on 11/22/63. You're setting up a straw man. I never suggested that the lighting conditions should not be duplicated. If the FBI test films were not shot on a full sun day, then new test films would have to be shot. (But please don't reason circularly and tell me that because the U-Tube videos are of such poor quality, that means the test films were not shot on a full sun day. Apparently, Gary Mack believed those test films were fine, thankyou. Now maybe he is wrong; maybe he didn't bother to look up the weather on that day--and candidly, I have not done so.) Have you concluded it was not a sunny day because the U-tube videos are so lousy? Or because you checked with the records kept by the U.S.Weather Bureau. (That would make a difference, I hope you know). So let's dispense with the straw man argument(s), and try to reign in your compulsion to display your erudition when it comes to lenses and light. The simple question is this: when the Zapruder camera is used, and when lens is set at full zoom, and when the light is at a level comparable to 11/22/63, will the camera produce--repeatedly, frame after frame--a sequence of frames that are full flush left, and in fact "beyond full flush left"--such as we see on the frames from the supposedly "original Zapruder film"? That's the test that must be conducted--and ought to have been conducted--before the taxpayers forked over $16 million for what may well be a forgery, an optically edited film that is supposedly "camera original." Sure, I know, Lamson. You will now respond to this post with another effusion of words, designed to advertise your erudition, but it will be lacking in logic, and steeped in denial. You seem not to comprehend that your prediction(s) about what such a test will show are not equivalent to actually conducting the test and examining the results. At the track, do you bet on horses, and then go and try to collect at the betting window, BEFORE the race is run? Are you so ego-centric that you genuinely believe that your knowledge (and predictions) about "how things work" are a substitute for actually conducting the appropriate test(s)? And yes, I'd love to conduct an "indoor test" with the camera (at full zoom) facing a clock, and the minute hand going round and round--and then increasing the light levels, a notch at a time, to see just when (and if) full flush penetration occurs. And when (and if) "beyond full flush" is even possible. Eventually, with enough light blasting through, it will happen. But when will that be, Lamson--after the camera has melted?? We're dealing with the Zapruder camera--this is not the test of a laser weapon. (Do you understand?) So please: stop erecting straw men, and stop using your knowledge of photography to invent excuses to avoid proper testing. And one other thing: should you attend the test, do bring some heavy dark goggles, and be sure to wear them during the test. I know, you'd prefer not to because you may look like a character in a Peanuts cartoon, but I'm afraid you may need the protection, since those may well be the light levels that are going to be needed before "beyond full flush left" penetration is achieved. DSL 1/13/2010; 1 AM Los Angeles, CA

I'm not "speculating' at all Lifton, I'm stating simple photographic fact. If the properties of the image circle of a lens eludes you, prehaps you need to bone up a bit before you comment. It's not my problem the "alterationists" don't have the first clue how this stuff works, that YOUR problem. The test films were NOT shot on a full sun day, as the you tube videos show ( you do know how to read shadow properties..correct?) If the clock footage was not shot at light level EQUAL to a full sun day, they too will be USELESS for comparison for your silly full flush left argument. Why? Because the lens will not be stopped down to the same extent as one filming on a FULL SUN day. So whats the difference, in f-stops, between full sun and cloudy bright? Lets check. Based on the standard sunny 16 rule, of 1 over the iso speed of the film at F16, gives us 1/25 at f16 for Zapruders camera. Since he was shooting at 1/40 of a second (roughly 1 stop difference from 1/250 that puts his lens at f11. Now what are the settings for cloudy bright? Answer, Two stops LESS than a full sun exposure. The test footage from the plaza would have been taken in the F8 range, a considerable difference. YOU want us to believe that there is any REAL value comparing images shot in the f16 range with those shot in the F8 range? And do you have the knowlege to even understand WHY? Unless your inspection of the test films is grounded with a full understanding of the process involved in their creation, we can fully discount your opinions on the subject. And based on your anwers to date, you are lacking the even the basic knowlege needed. Here's what an image circle looks like, just to jump start your much needed learning process. This is the image circle projected by a Hasselblad 50mm lens mounted on a 4x5 Horseman view camera and recorded on Type 55 b/w Polaroid film. F stop is unknown. You can however clearly see that the image formed by the lens softens and darkens as it vignettes at the very edge of the image circle. Why don't you get back to us when you know the subject matter. DSL REPLY (posted on 1/14/10, at 3:45 AM PST): Craig Lamson: I notice the clear difference between your argument and that of Gary Mack. Gary was claiming that test films were ALREADY shot; ergo, no need to shoot new test films. Now that sounded promising, did it not? But here we are, and your argument is quite different. Your argument: the test films are useless because they were not shot on a full sun day. Now which is it? Rollie Zavada recognized that if enough light was blasted through the lens, AND it was on full zoom, one might get full penetration of the inter sprocket area. Apparently, he got it on one frame with the red truck. But that's not what the Zapruder film frames show--just about every single frame (read that again, Mr. Lamson, "every single frame") is "full flush left" and many of them (if not just about all of them) are "BEYOND full full left." Now what are we to make of that? What is the problem here--my knowledge of photography, or your lack of logic? This is not about my ignorance of the interplay of these various factors, but rather your unwillingness to face the fact that there is good reason to suspect that what is called the "original Zapruder film" was not the film made by Abraham Zapruder, but rather an optically edited copy made on an optical printer, and then reduction printed to Kodachrome II. There is enough difference in "image content" (car stop, wounds that are on JFK's head, but were not seen 4 minutes later at Parkland, etc.) to suspect optical forgery. And one simple way to see if that is in fact the case is this matter of full flush left. An accurate test would include BOTH full zoom setting of the lens AS WELL AS the lighting conditions on 11/22/63. You're setting up a straw man. I never suggested that the lighting conditions should not be duplicated. If the FBI test films were not shot on a full sun day, then new test films would have to be shot. (But please don't reason circularly and tell me that because the U-Tube videos are of such poor quality, that means the test films were not shot on a full sun day. Apparently, Gary Mack believed those test films were fine, thankyou. Now maybe he is wrong; maybe he didn't bother to look up the weather on that day--and candidly, I have not done so.) Have you concluded it was not a sunny day because the U-tube videos are so lousy? Or because you checked with the records kept by the U.S.Weather Bureau. (That would make a difference, I hope you know). So let's dispense with the straw man argument(s), and try to reign in your compulsion to display your erudition when it comes to lenses and light. The simple question is this: when the Zapruder camera is used, and when lens is set at full zoom, and when the light is at a level comparable to 11/22/63, will the camera produce--repeatedly, frame after frame--a sequence of frames that are full flush left, and in fact "beyond full flush left"--such as we see on the frames from the supposedly "original Zapruder film"? That's the test that must be conducted--and ought to have been conducted--before the taxpayers forked over $16 million for what may well be a forgery, an optically edited film that is supposedly "camera original." Sure, I know, Lamson. You will now respond to this post with another effusion of words, designed to advertise your erudition, but it will be lacking in logic, and steeped in denial. You seem not to comprehend that your prediction(s) about what such a test will show are not equivalent to actually conducting the test and examining the results. At the track, do you bet on horses, and then go and try to collect at the betting window, BEFORE the race is run? Are you so ego-centric that you genuinely believe that your knowledge (and predictions) about "how things work" are a substitute for actually conducting the appropriate test(s)? And yes, I'd love to conduct an "indoor test" with the camera (at full zoom) facing a clock, and the minute hand going round and round--and then increasing the light levels, a notch at a time, to see just when (and if) full flush penetration occurs. And when (and if) "beyond full flush" is even possible. Eventually, with enough light blasting through, it will happen. But when will that be, Lamson--after the camera has melted?? We're dealing with the Zapruder camera--this is not the test of a laser weapon. (Do you understand?) So please: stop erecting straw men, and stop using your knowledge of photography to invent excuses to avoid proper testing. And one other thing: should you attend the test, do bring some heavy dark goggles, and be sure to wear them during the test. I know, you'd prefer not to because you may look like a character in a Peanuts cartoon, but I'm afraid you may need the protection, since those may well be the light levels that are going to be needed before "beyond full flush left" penetration is achieved. DSL 1/13/2010; 1 AM Los Angeles, CA

CORRECTION: I mistakenly wrote that I met Doug Horne "when I was in Hawaii, stationed at Pearl Harbor." That is an error. CORRECTION: I met Doug Horne in the early 1990s, when he was in Hawaii, stationed at Pearl Harbor, and I was in Honolulu, and gave a lecture at the Punahou School (the one attended by Obama). etc. * * * I have not read every page of Doug Horne's book, and you are correct--without an index, locating something specific like this may be difficult. But I can tell you this: at the time Best Evidence was published (Jan 1981) I believed the body was probably removed from the casket during the general period of the swearing in--and specifically, during one of those periods when McHugh had gone to the front of the plane, arguing with the pilot as to why the delay in taking off. However, new information came my way, and starting in the summer of 1984, I modified my conclusion and thereafter believed that the body was removed immediately AFTER the casket was placed on board, but BEFORE Jackie boarded. I met Doug Horne in the early 1990s, when I was in Hawaii, stationed at Pearl Harbor, and I gave a lecture at the Punahou School (the one attended by Obama). We re-established contact when he joined the ARRB staff, and many of the Best Evidence witnesses were called to testify. We were in touch often during that following three year "ARRB" period (1995 - 9/30/98), and in the years following. I fully updated Doug on revised conclusion that JFK's body was removed from the casket within a minute or so of it being placed on board AF-1. This will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming writing. Obviously, Godfrey McHugh was not with the body when that event occurred. There are, however, secret service agents who know that the body was removed from the casket--but this is not something any of them have publicly admitted, at this point in time. DSL 1/13/2010; 1:45 AM PST Los Angeles, CA

That description is David Lifton's, Doug Horne's is different. Again, because of the lack of index I can't immediately locate the page. Doug Horne's argument is that the moving of the body took place immediately the casket was o n board and before Jackie boarded the plane. That is where I have a problem. I understood that Jackie entered the plane immediately after the casket was loaded. I can't see where there was time to remove the body. James. I have not read every page of Doug Horne's book, and you are correct--without an index, locating something specific like this may be difficult. But I can tell you this: at the time Best Evidence was published (Jan 1981) I believed the body was probably removed from the casket during the general period of the swearing in--and specifically, during one of those periods when McHugh had gone to the front of the plane, arguing with the pilot as to why the delay in taking off. However, new information came my way, and starting in the summer of 1984, I modified my conclusion and thereafter believed that the body was removed immediately AFTER the casket was placed on board, but BEFORE Jackie boarded. I met Doug Horne in the early 1990s, when I was in Hawaii, stationed at Pearl Harbor, and I gave a lecture at the Punahou School (the one attended by Obama). We re-established contact when he joined the ARRB staff, and many of the Best Evidence witnesses were called to testify. We were in touch often during that following three year "ARRB" period (1995 - 9/30/98), and in the years following. I fully updated Doug on revised conclusion that JFK's body was removed from the casket within a minute or so of it being placed on board AF-1. This will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming writing. Obviously, Godfrey McHugh was not with the body when that event occurred. There are, however, secret service agents who know that the body was removed from the casket--but this is not something any of them have publicly admitted, at this point in time. DSL 1/13/2010; 1:45 AM PST Los Angeles, CA

Craig Lamson: I notice the clear difference between your argument and that of Gary Mack. Gary was claiming that test films were ALREADY shot; ergo, no need to shoot new test films. Now that sounded promising, did it not? But here we are, and your argument is quite different. Your argument: the test films are useless because they were not shot on a full sun day. Now which is it? Rollie Zavada recognized that if enough light was blasted through the lens, AND it was on full zoom, one might get full penetration of the inter sprocket area. Apparently, he got it on one frame with the red truck. But that's not what the Zapruder film frames show--just about every single frame (read that again, Mr. Lamson, "every single frame") is "full flush left" and many of them (if not just about all of them) are "BEYOND full full left." Now what are we to make of that? What is the problem here--my knowledge of photography, or your lack of logic? This is not about my ignorance of the interplay of these various factors, but rather your unwillingness to face the fact that there is good reason to suspect that what is called the "original Zapruder film" was not the film made by Abraham Zapruder, but rather an optically edited copy made on an optical printer, and then reduction printed to Kodachrome II. There is enough difference in "image content" (car stop, wounds that are on JFK's head, but were not seen 4 minutes later at Parkland, etc.) to suspect optical forgery. And one simple way to see if that is in fact the case is this matter of full flush left. An accurate test would include BOTH full zoom setting of the lens AS WELL AS the lighting conditions on 11/22/63. You're setting up a straw man. I never suggested that the lighting conditions should not be duplicated. If the FBI test films were not shot on a full sun day, then new test films would have to be shot. (But please don't reason circularly and tell me that because the U-Tube videos are of such poor quality, that means the test films were not shot on a full sun day. Apparently, Gary Mack believed those test films were fine, thankyou. Now maybe he is wrong; maybe he didn't bother to look up the weather on that day--and candidly, I have not done so.) Have you concluded it was not a sunny day because the U-tube videos are so lousy? Or because you checked with the records kept by the U.S.Weather Bureau. (That would make a difference, I hope you know). So let's dispense with the straw man argument(s), and try to reign in your compulsion to display your erudition when it comes to lenses and light. The simple question is this: when the Zapruder camera is used, and when lens is set at full zoom, and when the light is at a level comparable to 11/22/63, will the camera produce--repeatedly, frame after frame--a sequence of frames that are full flush left, and in fact "beyond full flush left"--such as we see on the frames from the supposedly "original Zapruder film"? That's the test that must be conducted--and ought to have been conducted--before the taxpayers forked over $16 million for what may well be a forgery, an optically edited film that is supposedly "camera original." Sure, I know, Lamson. You will now respond to this post with another effusion of words, designed to advertise your erudition, but it will be lacking in logic, and steeped in denial. You seem not to comprehend that your prediction(s) about what such a test will show are not equivalent to actually conducting the test and examining the results. At the track, do you bet on horses, and then go and try to collect at the betting window, BEFORE the race is run? Are you so ego-centric that you genuinely believe that your knowledge (and predictions) about "how things work" are a substitute for actually conducting the appropriate test(s)? And yes, I'd love to conduct an "indoor test" with the camera (at full zoom) facing a clock, and the minute hand going round and round--and then increasing the light levels, a notch at a time, to see just when (and if) full flush penetration occurs. And when (and if) "beyond full flush" is even possible. Eventually, with enough light blasting through, it will happen. But when will that be, Lamson--after the camera has melted?? We're dealing with the Zapruder camera--this is not the test of a laser weapon. (Do you understand?) So please: stop erecting straw men, and stop using your knowledge of photography to invent excuses to avoid proper testing. And one other thing: should you attend the test, do bring some heavy dark goggles, and be sure to wear them during the test. I know, you'd prefer not to because you may look like a character in a Peanuts cartoon, but I'm afraid you may need the protection, since those may well be the light levels that are going to be needed before "beyond full flush left" penetration is achieved. DSL 1/13/2010; 1 AM Los Angeles, CA

Tink: After I completed my work at the New York City optical lab (this was June or July, 1990) the 35mm item --on loan from Weitzman to Richter--was returned (by Richter) to Weitzman. Then Weitzman (most unfortunately) gave it back to Groden. FYI: That the was sole remaining 35 mm copy that Weitzman had retained, from the days of his work with LIFE. The upshot: Groden--from that point forward--possessed ALL the remaining 35 mm copies that Weitzman had made (and which I have seen referred to as "technician's copies". As I explained in a detailed 60 page (or more) memo to the ARRB, Groden had the mentality of an obsessive collector, not a researcher. It was his dream (and apparent goal) to control all the copies. He was astounded (and angered) that one had flown the coop, and had ended up in Richter's possession (and had then been briefly loaned to me, for that marked the end of his "image" monopoly). This entire affair is discussed--in detail--in "Pig on a Leash," starting with the breaker that reads "Summer 1989: Breaking Groden's Monopoly." The narrative goes on for some 10 pages. When Groden was deposed, under oath, by the ARRB--and the memos and documentation I prepared for the ARRB had a lot to do with how that deposition was structured--Groden then denied (under oath!) having 35 mm films--which was contrary to the facts as I knew them. Obviously, Groden is sitting on a gold mine (of sorts)--some half dozen 35 mm copies of the Z film, made back in 1967/68-- but the following should also be noted: the Sixth Floor Museum also has (I would think) one of those 35 mm Internegative of exactly the same type that I worked with at the New York City optical lab. FYI: Noel Twyman, who has had plenty of opportunity to compare various copies, has said that the copies he obtained from me were the clearest, of any to which he had access. Hope this clarifies what I have. DSL 1/12/2010; 3:10 AM PST Los Angeles, CA

Craig Lamson: You are theorizing and speculating about what the test films will show. The time has come to examine the test films, and see what they show. We then proceed from there. There will be plenty of time to theorize ---e.g., that the test films are "worthless" (as you are now predicting)--AFTER they have been examined, and AFTER THEY SHOW (as I believe they may well show) that frames from the test films do NOT show full flush left (and certainly do not show "BEYOND full flush left"). But the test films must be examined. That's the proper and logical way to proceed. Should it turn out--for example--that the Zapruder camera was put at full zoom, and pointed at a well lit clock (as the second hand swept round and round, in order to determine the camera speed); and should it turn out that, even at FULL ZOOM (which is where Zapruder set the lens), the camera does not repeatedly produce frames that are FULL FLUSH LEFT (not to mention "BEYOND full flush left") then that would be very important indeed. But again, its futile to speculate. As I said: the issue of authenticity is critical, and the time has come to view the test films, not predict the outcome--and already be indulging in explanations as to why the test films are "worthless." DSL 1/11/2010; 9 PM Los Angeles, CA

I was tempted to start a new thread titled "Gary Mack and the word 'presumably'. . ." but I decided to just register my thoughts here. This concerns the matter of "full flush left" and the "test films" that Duncan MacRae informed us about, based on Shaneyfelt's testimony. In Gary's statement (as posted by Duncan MacRae, and dated 9 January 2010 at 6:06 PM), Gary Mack makes two statements, and I'd like to comment on each of them. The first, QUOTE: "The films presumably contain similar intersprocket images and artifacts as those in the assassination film. " UNQUOTE . . . "presumably contain similar intersprocket images". . ?? . . . "presumably". . .? Let's consider that statement carefully, with particular emphasis on the word "presumably." I do not know what the "intersprocket images" on those test films will show, and (apparently) neither does Gary Mack--so he employs the word "presumably." My response to this situation is simply this: Let's retrieve the test films in question, lay them on a light box, take a good sample or two--each perhaps a foot in length, perhaps before the limo enters behind the sign, and then after it emerges--and make full width (edge-to-edge) contact prints. And then let's compare what the test films show with the so-called "original Zapruder film." In other words, I'm unwilling to assume anything, or "presume" anything. By contrast, Gary (apparently) places great weight on the fact that neither I (nor Doug Horne, for example) were aware that such test films existed--ergo, such films, when produced, will (Gary thinks) prove him correct. I don't believe such a presumption is warranted in this case, inasmuch as the image content in the Zapruder film is so at variance with what witnesses observed. Specifically, I am referring to the car stop witnesses, and the fact that the back of the head is blacked out, plus the fact that a huge wound appears on the forward right hand side of JFK's head which was not seen four minutes later at Parkland Hospital. In short, there's plenty of reason--based on image content alone--to suspect the film is a forgery. Indeed, the reason I focused on "full flush left" is that it seemed to be a shortcut to proving the film was a forgery. It was UNrelated to "image content" and had only to do with the optics of the camera--i.e., the architecture of the camera and its lens. Furthermore, it appeared to be a simple (and testable) criterion. Should it turn out that test films (shot at full zoom, the way Zapruder supposedly filmed) show that the image goes all the way to the left, and even beyond the left margin (as it apparently does, so much of the time, in what is supposedly the "camera original Zapruder film,") then all that would do is show that this particular method of attempting to prove the film is a forgery will have failed. All very well. I will go wherever the evidence leads. Should the "full flush left" (or even "beyond full flush left" ) test fail to prove the film is a forgery, that would certainly not prove the Z film is NOT a forgery, and anyone who has studied logic will understand the difference between a "necessary" and a "sufficient" condition. But from all the years I studied engineering and physics, I remember well that the interesting phenomena occur "at the boundary" and the inter-sprocket area represents a most interesting "boundary," so of course I'm most interested in seeing whether those who forged this film (yes, I'm admitting that I believe its a forgery) took care to create a credible inter-sprocket image area. If they did, they get high marks. But if they did not, then the ballgame is over. Its that simple. Now that brings me to the second statement Gary Mack made; and again I quote: "(The extremely poor quality You Tube version of one of the reels is not an accurate representation of its image quality.) UNQUOTE Note Gary Mack's words in describing what he saw on U-Tube: "the extremely poor quality"; and then he adds his own observation (which, again, appears to be his own speculation): that the "extremely poor quality" shown on U-Tube "is not an accurate representation of its image quality.") Well now: how does he know that? Does he have the test film at hand? If he does, then he should say so, and/or make it available. In the absence of such evidence, let me speculate as to why Gary included that caveat, and here's my speculation. I speculate that Gary , following Todd Vaughn's lead, clicked on the link that Todd provided, and looked at the test film. (Yes, that's what I did, too.) And what did he find? He probably found exactly what I found. The very first thing that struck me was the perfectly awful quality of the film. I showed it to a friend of mine and said, "Is THIS what the FBI calls a 'test film' made in Zapruder's camera? How awful!" (Indeed, its so bad you can barely make out the features on the FBI agents' faces!) In other words, if what's on U-Tube is in any way indicative of what's on the FBI "test film," then folks--the ball game is over. So I've simply got to believe that the "test film"--when actually retrieved from NARA, and put on a light box--will surely produce imagery that is comparable in quality to the frames published in Life magazine. Otherwise (and this is completely aside from the issue of "full flush left,") there's no way that the Zapruder film" (as we know it) was taken in Zapruder's camera. I'm sure Gary had that reaction, too--and that's why he wrote the caveat he did. For he must have seen the terrible quality of the FBI test film (as shown on U-tube) and realized the implications. Now as I write this, I truly do not know how all this will play out. I'm simply writing this from the standpoint of a reasonably skeptical person who is looking forward to the proper test films being examined (and/or a new test being performed, should that be necessary). And remember: the Zapruder camera has to be at full zoom to get the maximum image penetration into the intersprocket area. As I've noted in other posts, the Zapruder frames on the supposedly "camera original Zapruder film" go ALL the way out to the left margin, and even 5% beyond "full penetration." I'm truly interested in whether the FBI test films--using Zapruder's camera, set at full zoom--can achieve that effect. I'm betting that the answer is "no." Gary Mack seems to be saying, "Of course it will!" Let's retrieve the test films at NARA, do the proper photography, and see what the answer really is. DSL 1/11/10; 1:10 AM Los Angeles, CA Post script: Here's what Gary wrote (at the end of his post), QUOTE: There was no need in 1996 for the ARRB to borrow Zapruder’s camera for use in Dallas, nor was there a need in 2000 for Rollie Zavada to use it for his follow-up study of the original film. There was no need because test films already existed and they are available for examination in one form or another. And yet, the alterationists remain completely ignorant of their existence. Amazing! UNQUOTE DSL RESPONSE: No, Gary. What is "amazing" is YOUR assumption that you know the answer to what the test films will show, before any such proper examination is made. Gary, the betting window is now closed--for you, and for me, and for everyone else, too. Its time to stop looking at U-Tube, stop speculatiing, and to examine the actual FBI films, and see what the answer is. Let's agree on that, OK? Like the lesson learned from the story about Aristotle: its time to stop speculating and count the teeth in the mouth of the horse. DSL

Let me weigh in here with my own opinion about the best source of imagery to view the Zapruder frames: the answer is the 35 mm copies of the Zapruder film made by Moses Weitzman, circa 1968. Two factors are critical: 1. Weitzman did the work in 1967-68 (I do not know the exact year)--but this means that any degradation of the Zapruder original that has occured, over time, is not on his 35 mm copies. 2. Weitzman used an Oxberry Optical printer with a wetgate, so scratches, etc. were eliminated. (As I understand it, the NARA original has become scratched and dirty). I assume that the Sixth Floor Museum has at least one of the Weitzman 35 mm copies--if not more than one. Robert Groden has some half dozen of the others. In fact, he has all of the ones that Weitzman had retained--what he called "technician copies." In 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter was loaned one of the 35 mm copies--and that is the copy that I worked with at a New York City film lab. This is described in "Pig on a Leash" under the sub-head "At the New York Optical Lab." In brief, I spent several days working with the 35 mm item that was provided by Richter. Please note: it was a 35 mm internegative, made DIRECTLY FROM Zapruder's (supposed) original 8mm film. So what was in my hands, and what I was working with, represented just "one pass" through a lense. What I produced: 1. a number of 35 mm copies, made directly from Weitzman's 35 mm Internegative 2. Using the lense, I enlarged the view, and focused in on the occupants of the car, and specifically the head wounds, creating passes that are cropped frame by frame enlargements. The film in "my" camera was positive film. In addition: I had the Weitzman 35 mm internegative sent out to another lap for a 35 mm timed contact interpositive. (From that interpositive, I could then make a negative, and from the negative, I could make prints). The key results of my work were transferred to 1" video. All these materials were (and still are) of the highest quality. Because they were made from the Weitzman Internegative, they had been masked on the far left, and so do not have any image between the sprocket holes. One of those timed contact interpsotives is what I donated to the National Archives when I testified on 9/17/96. It is part of my Deed of Gift, and-I believe--is still under seal. But its there, at NARA, and represents the work I did in New York City in July, 1990. Personal Observation: In my opinion, the materials I produced in 1990 are of higher quality than anything produced, in 1997, from the refrigerated Zapruder original, because the original had deteriorated with time; whereas I was working off a very fine 35 mm internegative produced by Moses Weitzman himself back in 1967 or 1968. Personal Observation and Opinion: Based on what I saw, and I studied this for days, it seemed pretty obvious that the back of the head had been "blacked out", continuously, after the fatal shot. That is visible in all the frames after 313, but is most obvious in frames 321, and 323, because those happen to be particularly clear frames. Similarly, the best frames for viewing the "painted on" large head wound are frames 335 and 337. Another note: Back in 1998, in connection with my appearance at JFK Lancer, I prepared--for demonstration purposes--a "color reversal" copy of the head sequence, step printed, and made specifically to show the blacked out area. I did this in "color reversal" so that, when projected, the blacked out area would be a "whited out" area--and I then had this transferred to video, and presented it in a talk I gave at Lancer. In summary, the very obviously blacked out "back of the head" appears in numerous frames after the fatal shot. The best source to view it, in my opinion, is on the 35 mm Weitzman materials (made decades ago); I had that privilege--first, in 1970, at the Time Life office in Beverly Hills (see Pig on a Leash) and then again in June, 1990, in New York. Of course, one can go (and should go) to the Sixth Floor Museum and examine transparencies made in 1997, but --given the passage of time--I would think the sharpest images come from materials created by Weitzman back in 1967/68. One other fact: I had one of my 1990 IP's scanned--I don't know whether it was at 4k or 6k--back around 2004, and I can retrieve that from storage and take a look. The fact is: we should all be grateful to Moses Weitzman for the work he did back in 1967/68, when he utilized Zapruder's 8mm film in an Oxberry Optical Printer and went from 8mm to 35mm in one fell swoop. Although the blacked out back of the head is particularly clear in the Weitzman 35 mm films, I believe that the "blacked out" back of the head is probably visible on all versions. I am most familiar with how it appears on the Weitzman materials. And let me assure everyone: it wasn't put there by Weitzman--it was there on the so-called "original Zapruder film" which he so nicely enlarged. DSL 1/10/2010 7:45 PM Los Angeles, CA

Ray, The two are in fact closely related. Please read Pig on a Leash for details. Also see the long Zapruder film footnote in chapter 24 of Best Evidence, where I attempted to address this matter, a good 15 years before the technology of the Internet (the advent of Quicktime and Windows Media Player, in their more sophsticated incarnations, circa 2002) made it feasible to debate and illustrate these points. No time to pursue it here. The large head wound shown on the Zapruder film (e.g., see frame 335 and 337) was NOT seen at Parkland Hospital four minutes later. I became aware of this about four years AFTER I discovered the primary evidence of body alteration and interception (1966-67). That evidence stands alone, and is not impeached by the fact that the phony imagery on the Zapruder film--the details of which have become more clear, with the passage of time) superficially appears to (and I stress the words "appears to") corroborate the Bethesda autopsy findings. This divergence between what was clearly visible in certain film frames, and what was seen at Parkland Hospital four minutes later, provided further evidence (along with the car-stop witnesses) that the Zapruder film is a forgery. DSL 1/8/10; 1:20 AM Los Angeles, CA I have never thought that David Lifton's body alteration theory depends on proving that the ZFILM is fake. It seems to me that body alteration is entirely consistent with what we see in the ZFILm. Can anyone tell me what I am missing?

Jerry Logan has written an elegant and logical reply--one that addresses the corrupt logic and paranoid style that lays behind this sort of "agent" accusation. I strongly disagree with Thompson (very strongly disagree, in fact) on a number issues, and even have been exasperated by some of the positions he takes, failing to understand why he doesn't believe A, but rather believes B. That happens a lot. But no, I do NOT believe that he is an agent. Further, I agree with Logan: it diverts attention from the issues, to the person. Stick to the issues; take apart your opponent on the facts; but be very careful when getting into a conspiracy theory to explain your opponent's behavior. For example, Pamela: you claim to have seen the Zapruder film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the Fall of 1964, and I have (elsewhere, on another thread) set forth my numerous (and valid) reasons for believing why that cannot possibly be true. Why I believe you're spreading an urban legend; why what you're saying belongs on Snopes dot com. Now, I could carry this further and speculate as to why you would disseminate such a clearly impossible claim. That would lead to conjectures about your psychological state (and would be really besides the point, would it not)? But let's say I were to travel down that path. Then, that line of "reasoning" could be carried a step further, to the political arena--perhaps by alleging that by putting someone up to spreading such a false claim on the Internet, circa 2010, you are acting as the agent of some conspirators whose goal is to influence future generations who should forget how the film was totally quarantined, and off limits, but instead remember the claim of that lady who says it was screened in a New York City cinema in the fall of 1964. All very Orwellian (right?). Well, wrong. That's absurd, of course. But my point is: I could view matters through that most peculiar lens, and come up with a conspiracy theory re your motivation. Now here's another example. I happen to believe--strongly believe--that there was a hole in the windshield (I have no doubt about that at all, as a matter of fact) and furthermore, I believe that Doug Weldon's work is very important AND valid. You take issue with it. Well, not only might I disagree with your interpretation of the data, and your criticisms of his his interpretation; but in addition, I come up with a conspiracy theory to explain WHY you take the position(s) you do--i.e., that you are an "agent" sent out to destroy Weldon. Now. . let's see. . what might my evidence be? . . hmmm. . . well now, isn't it the case that you were visited by Ken Rahn, the notorious lone nutter who runs a website with all sorts of defenses of the lone nutter theory? Why, isn't it the case that there are even pictures of you and him (and I believe your significant other) cavorting socially? . etc etc. . . Oh my gosh. . look at this web of associations! But all this is quite beside the point, is it not? You're not a "government agent" any more than Josiah Thompson is an agent. You just happen to hold a set of beliefs (with regard to the windshield) that I believe to be completely incorrect. Does that make you an agent. As for your allegedly viewing the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in 1964? A claim that is so far out that I have to resort to words like "absurd," "ridiculous" and "totally unbelievable" to describe my reaction? In fact, I get personally irritated every time I think of Stewart Galanor or Thom Stamm taking a train to Washington, D.C. to view the Zapruder film at the Archives, while you are glibly claiming you saw it in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, within weeks of the release of the Warren Report. I may even ask "what were you smoking?" (that night), but no--I do not think you were an agent, sent out by malevolent forces to change the history of 1964. You are free of course to go down that path. . .Swift boating your opponent. . .(as Logan has put it). . .in effect erecting a "conspiracy theory of motivation" for an intellectual opponent. All I can tell you is: that way madness lies. DSL 1/7/10; 7:15 PM, PST Los Angeles, CA PS: What WERE you smoking that night??

SMALL CORRECTION re statement about "image content": So now we are mucking around, looking for a film that was shot in May, 1964, and hoping to get full width contact prints, when all this could have been done, routinely, back in 1996-1997, when Zavada was hired to do a job. The fact is: he didn't do the job correctly. You don't buy garage sale cameras, when the whole purpose of the test is to use THE Zapruder camera. And that seems an eminently sensible thing to do when the Government is about to spend some $16 million of the taxpayers money for a film that has image content (e.g., no car stop, on the extant Z film ) that is so contrary to what so many witnesses saw that day. DSL 1/6/2010; 7:45 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

To all: The Sixth Floor Museum did NOT prevent the use of Zapruder's camera. Doug wanted a test to be run --what any high school teacher would want: the proper film to be run through Zapruder's camera. At the time (as I recall) the Z camera was with the Museum, but that was irrelevant, because events never got that far. Jeremy Gunn was concerned that the media would get wind of this and run a story claiming that the ARRB was "investigating" the assassination, or "questioning" the film, etc etc. In retrospect, this is ridiculous, because there was going to be a taking (of the film) and some $16 million dollars was to be spent (although the exact amount wasn't then known)--so of course there should be the appropriate tests to establish provenance, authenticity, etc. But Gunn was squeamish, worried that what the Board would be proposing would become public, and then the critical moment occurred when Gunn--with Doug Horne standing there in his office--got Rollie Zavada on the phone, and queried Rollie as to the desirability and/or necessity of doing such a test (which, clearly, Gunn did not want to do). Zavada, who by that time either had purchased (or knew he would be purchasing) the same Bell and Howell camera (from garage sales, etc.) demurred, and said (in effect), "No, that's not necessary." Doug was crestfallen, because there, right before his eyes, a critical opportunity--to test put the Z film in evidence to a proper (and simple) --authenticity test, went down the drain. Again, let me emphasize: the Sixth Floor Museum was not the problem. The problem was that Gunn preferred not to have to do it, and then Zavada basically backed him up, by saying it wasn't necessary. I know of these details because I was on the phone with Doug Horne several times a week, during this period--and we had agreed (the year before) to tape all our telephone conversations. So I have a dozens of cassettes, and numerous memos of the day by day goings on, with regard to the ARRB and the medical evidence, and the ARRB and the Z film. It was on July 1, 1996, that I sent Horne, Gunn, Marwell, et al the file I had received (some 26 years earlier) containing the Z contracts (both of them, the origina, 11/23/63 and then the revised 11/25/63, when the price tripled, to $150K, over the weekend) and the word I got back was that they were all delighted to receive these documents. Had Gunn and Zavada performed such a test, then there would have been one of two outcomes: either the test films would "match" (which would certainly be consistent with--but not proof of--authenticity) or there would be a mismatch. The fact is, there were no specific suspicions about what it would or would not show at the time. It just seemed like the proper thing to do. But Gunn was afraid of the public impression it would create, Zavada acquiesced, and so it was not done. So now we are mucking around, looking for a film that was shot in May, 1964, and hoping to get full width contact prints, when all this could have been done, routinely, back in 1996-1997, when Zavada was hired to do a job. The fact is: he didn't do the job correctly. You don't buy garage sale cameras, when the whole purpose of the test is to use THE Zapruder camera. And that seems an eminently sensible thing to do when the Government is about to spend some $16 million of the taxpayers money for a film that has image content (e.g., car stop etc ) that is so contrary to what so many witnesses saw that day. DSL 1/6/2010; 7:45 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

You are right Duncan--and I already posted to that effect on another thread. NARA has to be queried; and a full contact print made of a section of the film, and then a comparison must be made between left intersprocket area of the test film with the same area from frames from the "cakmera original" Zapruder film. I hope your discovery leads to the production of significant and useful data, and not some story that the film is unavailable, or can't be copied in this fashion, tc etc. DSL

Very well put, jack. Those who are opeating under the old paradigm are still looking for "hidden shooters on the knoll." But I am positive that this assassination was filmed, the same way a football team films its own play, and so we're looking for hidden cameras, and other paraphernalia and related techniques to understand not only how the shooting occurred, but how the subsequent "imagery" of this event was controlled. DSL

Re Pamela's assertion that the Zapruder film was projected at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the fall of 1964, and that "I've been sharing this event with the research community for a very long time." No, I was unaware that you were doing so, but that fact does not change my opinion about this one iota. I don't know what film you saw at New York City's Bleeker Street Cinema "in the fall of 1964" (which would be just after the issuance of the Warren Report) but it couldn't possibly have been the Zapruder film. On 11/25/63, Time-Life executed an "all rights" contract on the Zapruder film for $150,000-and took permanent legal possession of the original with the express purpose of never permitting it to be seen as a motion picture film. Using a multiplier of six (to bring us to "today's money"), Time-Life executed a contract for $900,000 (in today's money) to achieve that goal. This is very serious money, and bespeaks a very serious intent at complete suppression--especially in the fall of 1964, with the LBJ-Goldwater election on the calendar. As previously noted, I had these contracts--courtesy of Josiah thompson--by around 1969/70. I was in very heavy contact with the ARRB and sent them to Horne, Gunn, and Marwell on July 1, 1996--along with a detailed memorandum explaining the significance of the change in price between Saturday, 11/23, and Monday, 11/25/63. I received back direct commentary that Marwell, Gunn, and Laura Denk was delighted and fascinated by the receipt of this material. As the contracts show, $25,000 (of $150,000, in today's money) was paid on 11/23/63; and another $25,000 (i.e., another $150,000, in today's money) was paid a few days after January 1, 1964. So by the fall of 1964, $300,000 (in today's money) had been expended. By the fall of 1964, frames from the film had appeared in three issues of LIFE magazine: about 30 frames of the Zapruder film had been published in the 11/29/63 edition of Life; and about 9 frames in the Life Memorial Edition, the next week. In early October, 1964, in an issue about the Warren Report, 8 frames were published. Outside of the FBI, the Secret Service and the Warren Commission, and certain staffers at Life, the only way for an ordinary civilian to see the Zapruder film was to travel to Washington, D.C. and make an appointment for a screening at the National Archives. Two such persons who did exactly that were Thomas Stamm, and Stewart Galanor. They both related vivid accounts describing what that was like--Stamm's account being circulated to a number of people in the nascent "research community." Now back to this claim about the public projection of this film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the fall of 1964: I continue to maintain that the Zapruder film was not projected at the Bleeker Street Cinema in New York City--or any other New York theater, for that matter--and that Time-Life had executed a contract to the tune of $900,000 (in today's money) insure that no such thing would occur--and in fact it did not occur. I do not know what you saw screened at the Bleeker Street Cinema, but it is not just "highly unlikely" that it was the Zapruder film--that is as close to impossible as one can get. I say this as someone who lived through the frustration of this period, someone who realized, from the poor black and white reproductions of the Z frames in Volume 18, that the film showed JFK being slammed backwards and to the left, and who, consequently, greatly admired the effort expended by a small number of first generation JFK researchers--Thomas Stamm and Stewart Galanor (and Vincent Salandria, etc.) --who traveled to the National Archives, made an appointment to screen this critical evidence, were shocked at what they saw, and then did what they could--in a world where there was no Internet--to "spread the word." I believe it demeans their effort and the historic role they played to repeatedly disseminate a story that during this period when the film was clearly quarantined from the American public, that it was screened at the Bleeker Street cinema. In my opinion, spreading this story--whether the result of confusion or misunderstanding--is simply spreading an urban legend. DSL January 6, 2010; 4:40 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Todd, I just took a quick look at the U-Tube link. All very interesting, but. . . : You probably can anticipate my next question: Where are the sprocket holes on this film? Obviously, they don't appear, and were probably masked out in the course of making a dub, or a video transfer. Which brings me to the next--and most important point: Has someone asked NARA to locate the actual FBI film, made in Zapruder's camera, lay several feet of it on a light box, and make some full width contact prints? I'll bet that may well cost a pretty penny, but that is what is needed. That is the only way to compare, with precision, the left margin of a film shot in Zapruder's camera, in 1964 with the left margin of the film from transparencies of the individual Zapruder frames were made DSL 1/6/10; 12:35 AM, PST Los Angeles, California

Yes, that is correct, I did not read Shaneyfelt's testimony as carefully as I shoiuld have; and so no, I did not know (prior to reading this post) that Shaneyfelt had testified that Zapruder's camera was used to shoot test films during the May, 1964 reconstruction. Indeed, that is a most interesting "discovery"--and I only put the word in quotes because it is one of those things that was hiding in plain sight." I applaud Duncan MacRae for making this discovery, and am most interested in seeing where this leads. I think it is now most important to locate such test films. I would hope that the Sixth Floor Museum would query the National Archives to determine whether or not such films are in the JFK Records Collection. If these films can be located, that would be great. I would like to see full contact prints made of any reasonable sequence of frames from such a test film, for comparison with the frames of the film now at the Archives. Because let me assure you that I would very much like to know if the "full flush left" argument is in fact dispositive, on the quesiton of whether the film is a fabrication. Candidly, I am very surprised that--during the life of the ARRB--it was not discovered that (according to this Shaneyfelt testimony) such test films already existed. Had that been known, I can assure you that Doug Horne would have immediately requested access to such filmed records from the FBI. His August, 1996 memo requested that test films be shot in Zapruder's camera. Zavada said that no, it wasn't necessary, etc., and so it was not done. So that's why we have ended up with "test films" shot by Zavada in a camera bought at a garage sale. Let's get the original FBI test films, and compare them to the Zapruder film. That's a great idea. DSL 1/04/10; 3 PM Los Angeles, CA