Dean Hagerman

Why dont you use a different color line to prove your point?

I can do that but im at work all day, if you want to prove me wrong use a bright green line and we can see if it lines up with the sprocket holes and takes away the tiny amount of black that goes beyond the sprocket holes

Dean

Here you go Dean.

Click on the image to see it larger. It's accurate, and the same dark area beyond the edges in the intersprocket area is visible. I think the white colour may have been confusing both you and Todd.

Duncan you are still wrong

Look at the top sprocket hole, your still not over left far enough

And even the bottom sprocket hole I can still see white fuzz on to the left of the green line

I dont know why you made the line blink, it should be solid

I will do my own when I get home, im willing to bet that small amount of black will not show to the left of the line, thus proving Liftons full flush left theory on THESE frames taken by Zavada

I know you are honest Duncan so im not saying you are doing this on purpose, but you are not putting the line where it belongs

We will compare lines when I get home and do one myself

Dean

your line in the second image is not drawn to the left edge of the sprocket holes, not only that you see nothing in the area that all of your arrows point too.

It looks pretty accurate to me Dean.

I dont think so

You need to move the line over to the left of the bottom sprocket hole, your line goes through the white area of the sprocket hole not the edge of it, and if you do that it will take away that small amount of black nothing that you are claiming proves Lifton wrong

How can you say that small amount of nothing you point to in any way looks the same as the Z-film with Clint Hill and all other images clearly shown beyond the left of the sprocket holes

Duncan you are wrong

Dean,

Have you been to an Optician recently? if not, now's the time.

The line is on the edges of the sprocket hole edges, and I doubt any of the other photo analysts will disagree. I'll give you a clue as to why you think it goes through the sprocket hole...over use of plus contrast to the white sprocket hole areas, added by whoever created the image.

I would also suggest not misquoting me. I did NOT say that David's images look the same as the Z-film image with Clint Hill.

Sorry that I "misquoted" you, what are you trying to prove or say then? That David is wrong? Am I correct in saying that?

Why dont you use a different color line to prove your point?

I can do that but im at work all day, if you want to prove me wrong use a bright green line and we can see if it lines up with the sprocket holes and takes away the tiny amount of black that goes beyond the sprocket holes

Dean

Also I can see the uneven fuzz of the sprocket hole on the bottom left instead of the sharp white line that you used, so do you still think I should get my eyes checked?

Because we should not see the fuzzy line of the sprocket hole if the line is lined up correctly as you say, we should see a sharp line

Anyone agree with me?

Dean,

I agree that Duncan's line is to the right of the sprocket hole's left-most edge.

Todd

Thank you Todd

Dean

your line in the second image is not drawn to the left edge of the sprocket holes, not only that you see nothing in the area that all of your arrows point too.

It looks pretty accurate to me Dean.

I dont think so

You need to move the line over to the left of the bottom sprocket hole, your line goes through the white area of the sprocket hole not the edge of it, and if you do that it will take away that small amount of black nothing that you are claiming proves Lifton wrong

How can you say that small amount of nothing you point to in any way looks the same as the Z-film with Clint Hill and all other images clearly shown beyond the left of the sprocket holes

Duncan you are wrong

Dean,

Have you been to an Optician recently? if not, now's the time.

The line is on the edges of the sprocket hole edges, and I doubt any of the other photo analysts will disagree. I'll give you a clue as to why you think it goes through the sprocket hole...over use of plus contrast to the white sprocket hole areas, added by whoever created the image.

I would also suggest not misquoting me. I did NOT say that David's images look the same as the Z-film image with Clint Hill.

Sorry that I "misquoted" you, what are you trying to prove or say then? That David is wrong? Am I correct in saying that?

Why dont you use a different color line to prove your point?

I can do that but im at work all day, if you want to prove me wrong use a bright green line and we can see if it lines up with the sprocket holes and takes away the tiny amount of black that goes beyond the sprocket holes

Dean

Also I can see the uneven fuzz of the sprocket hole on the bottom left instead of the sharp white line that you used, so do you still think I should get my eyes checked?

Because we should not see the fuzzy line of the sprocket hole if the line is lined up correctly as you say, we should see a sharp line

Anyone agree with me?

I just took a look through Costella's "combined edit" and call your attention to frames 235-244. In frame after frame, there is not only "full penetration" of the intersprocket area, but the image even extends FURTHER than the left margin. (Just focus on the image of SS Agent Clint Hill, who is often either partially, or wholly, to the left of the left margin). That, in my opinion, is a mechanical impossibility if the Z film that contains these frames was actually shot in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera.

Your comments?

I think you are wrong David. If you draw a simple straight line at the furthermost points of the sprocket holes of the succesive frames of your experimental frames, it can clearly be seen that there is in fact penetration in to the area beyond the edge of these points. This penetration shows best in the top frame. It is very minimal in your red car example, but nevertheless it's there. This means that it is not mechanically impossible.

Would you be so kind to draw a similar line on the frames with Clint Hill? Then we could compare the red truck penetration versus the Clint Hill penetration.

Does a solid color lend itself to this odd "edge fog" phenomena more than a ... lets say ... human face, or light horizontal line?

Cheerio,

Peter Fokes

Thank you Peter

I would love to see that Duncan

your line in the second image is not drawn to the left edge of the sprocket holes, not only that you see nothing in the area that all of your arrows point too.

It looks pretty accurate to me Dean.

I dont think so

You need to move the line over to the left of the bottom sprocket hole, your line goes through the white area of the sprocket hole not the edge of it, and if you do that it will take away that small amount of black nothing that you are claiming proves Lifton wrong

How can you say that small amount of nothing you point to in any way looks the same as the Z-film with Clint Hill and all other images clearly shown beyond the left of the sprocket holes

Duncan you are wrong

I just took a look through Costella's "combined edit" and call your attention to frames 235-244. In frame after frame, there is not only "full penetration" of the intersprocket area, but the image even extends FURTHER than the left margin. (Just focus on the image of SS Agent Clint Hill, who is often either partially, or wholly, to the left of the left margin). That, in my opinion, is a mechanical impossibility if the Z film that contains these frames was actually shot in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera.

Your comments?

I think you are wrong David. If you draw a simple straight line at the furthermost points of the sprocket holes of the succesive frames of your experimental frames, it can clearly be seen that there is in fact penetration in to the area beyond the edge of these points. This penetration shows best in the top frame. It is very minimal in your red car example, but nevertheless it's there. This means that it is not mechanically impossible.

I think you are wrong Duncan

Not only does your first line prove nothing but the second image you posted shows nothing even close to the image in the Z-film that extend far beyond the sprocket holes (compared to Zavadas image) and your line in the second image is not drawn to the left edge of the sprocket holes, not only that you see nothing in the area that all of your arrows point too.

In the fake Z-film you can make out the images no problem

Well, I see that my little "exhibit" actually uploaded. Good.

Now, I will upload, separately, each of the component parts--so that each can be examined separately for ease of study.

I invite your comments, Josiah Thompson, as to why the image of "Rollie's Red Truck" is so different, at the left margin, than the image of the Zapruder frames (and Z 244 is just one I happen to choose, since it shows Clint Hill out there on the left).

DSL

These images show what I have always thought that David was talking about (i.e Full Flush Left)

That the image extends beyond the sprocket holes past were the image should have stopped already, all the way to the left

Thanks for those images David, they really cement your position on Full Flush Left

Dean

I think it's a fair question, Josiah, to ask you where you stand now on the overall question of conspiracy. What's your view now of what happened on November 22, 1963? I realize you can't actually know the answers- neither can I, or anyone else. All we can do is speculate, and that's pretty much what we spend a lot of time doing on this forum. I'd be very interested in your speculation, and if it can be done without mentioning Jim Fetzer, that would be wonderful.

Another great question

Very nice post Don

Dean

Josiah Thompson has misstated several critical facts, and made a number of critical errors. Perhaps he is just confused. Here is an attempt to untangle these matters.

To begin with: Jim Fetzer had nothing to do with the full flush left argument. That is something that Doug Horne and I worked on together, starting in the Spring of 1999, six months after the ARRB shut down, when we were being interviewed by a German television network about the Zapruder film. At that time, we were both examining the Zavada report, and that's when we had our discussions about "full flush left." In 2003, we revisted the issue when I was writing Pig on a Leash, and I included our analysis of the matter when I submitted my essay to Fetzer, for inclusion in Hoax.

Regarding "full flush left": The issue at hand (at least, the way I originally perceived it) is whether it was physically possible for Zapruder's camera to put an image all the way over to the left—"full flush left" was a phrase I coined. That's the way the frames consistently appear on the supposed camera original" Zapruder film.

Were it to be the case that the Zapruder camera could not ever do that, then the mere fact that the Zapruder frames in evidence consistently go "full flush left" would be proof that the film we call "the Zapruder film" is a forgery. On the other hand, if it should turn out that the Zapruder camera can indeed put such an image very far to the left, but, as the motor is turning, and the film is going over the transport mechanism, it does so only intermittently—e.g., perhaps once in every 10 frames (and I am only speculating here, to provide an example), then that would show that while it is not a physical impossibility, such a phenomenon occurs (on a genuine camera original) only intermittently whereas on the Zapruder film, it occurs consistently, i.e., in every single frame. In that case, "full flush left" would still be an important indicator of inauthenticity, but it would be a statistical argument.

Then there is still another matter: on the so-called original, there are frames (and I am not prepared here to cite frame numbers from memory) where the image actually extends BEYOND the left margin (i.e., beyond "full flush left") and (once again) that may well be physically impossible. The camera should be tested. Can it do that—produce images that extend beyond the left frame margin? If it can, then so be it. But if it is demonstrably the case that it cannot, then that (again) would constitute proof of forgery—i.e., that the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film is not a film that was made in Zapruder's camera, and at the time of the assassination.

Of course, as a close student of this matter, I am very interested which is the case—is this a case of “physical impossibility” (which is what I originally believed, i.e., "the lens cannot do that, therefore, the film is a forgery") or is it the case that "the lens and motor mechanism only does it some of the time" (whereas Z film displays that all of the time).

Thompson seems to think that because one of Zavada's test shots shows a red truck extending to the left, the matter is settled. It is not. There is still the matter of how it is possible for the image to extend "beyond full flush left" (which it does, in some of the frames); and also the matter of why, on Zavada's test shots, the lower right hand corner of the sprocket hole consistently shows a white area, whereas on the so called Z film, this does not happen.

Finally, in response to Thompson's other comments—there is the implication of which is that I set out to defraud the reader—that is ridiculous. I never deliberately published anything in "degraded" form. I took the photos that were available in the Zavada report, as I received it, and as reproduced on a modern photo copy machine. Should it turn out that, when reproduced in color, the frames in Zavada’s test shot showing a red truck extends out to the left, then so be it. The frames in the other test sequences certainly do NOT appear to go out that far to the left.

So, for me, and because of the "red truck" sequence, the issue is whether "full flush left" is an argument that proves inauthenticity because it demonstrates that the camera cannot ever do that (i.e., cannot do that at all), or whether it is a statistical argument, i.e., a powerful indicia of inauthenticity but not absolute proof which would be the case if it represented a physical impossibility.

An important indication that “full flush left” may indeed provide a viable indicator of inauthenticity occurs in the frames that Thompson himself published in this post.

The color sequence published in Thompson’s own post show a clearly visible jump, in intersprocket penetration, between what is visible in the last non-assassination sequence (the two ladies and a man, by the monument)—frames which no doubt come from the camera original, and which have not been altered—and the assassination sequence (i.e., starting with the first frame showing the motorcycle rounding the corner) which show full flush left penetration.

One has to wonder: why is it that, when we come upon the assassination sequence, the characteristics of the lens change and the frames exhibit consistent “full flush left” behavior? (and even beyond full flush left, as noted above).

Rollie Zavada would probably argue that Zapruder changed the lens setting to “full telephoto,” but that is just my speculation. The fact is: the original Zapruder camera has to be properly tested to explore this phenomenon. One does not buy cameras at garage sales, photograph one’s wife in the street, and call that “science.” One addresses the issue directly, and under laboratory conditions.

One has to wonder: doesn’t Thompson notice these things? Or is he so biased in his beliefs about authenticity, that he fails to see such data when it is clearly laid out, before him, and in full color, right before his eyes, and in frames he is utilizing?

Finally (and now changing the subject) there is one other matter—and this deals with another, and clearly false allegation that Thompson makes about me. In his very last paragraph, the one numbered “(2)” (and preceded by the words, “I want to make two things clear”), Thompson’s second point is that, in Murder in Dealey Plaza, that I “circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine and labeled it “the apparent through and through hole in the windshield.”

Sorry, Professor Thompson, but I did nothing of the kind. I did not contribute any writing at all to “Murder in Dealey Plaza,” so I don’t know what you are talking about, and only have to wonder: “What are you smoking, Josiah, that you would write a sentence like that?”

DSL

David S. Lifton

12/29/09; 7:05 PM PST

Now that is the type of answer to a question I was looking for from Tink

Thanks for that great post David, you just put Tinks accusation in the trash bin

Dean

Michael, Do you know the date of publication? I visited the site and could not tell. Thanks very much. Jim

What fascinates me is that, once this study had been published, there was

no longer any justification for the chain-of-custody argument as a defense

against Zapruder film alteration. Yet Josiah Thompson was still advancing

it when THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) was published and, so

far as I am aware, has yet to repudiate it, even with the publication of the

chapter about NIPC by Doug Horne in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)

and now the additional confirmation he has acquired about it. So where

and when did this masterful study appear? And why has Tink ignored it?

Phil Melanson's article, Hidden Exposure: Cover Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film,

appeared in the inaugural issue of Jerry Rose's remarkable journal, The Third Decade

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=520770

That issue was published November of 1984

However Jim I dont know if that article was ever published before this 3rd Decade issue was released

Thanks for the reply Tink I posted before I saw it, here was my next post

The question I have is why you changed you view on the double head shot

I will quote you on the bottom of page 111 of your book

"A coincidence certainly, but a coincidence whose reality is confirmed by the overwhelming weight of evidence"

I cant see how you can be so sure of the double head shot (of which I believe in and have believed in since reading your book back in 1988)

Why now do you say you were wrong because of the limo passangers lurching forward? Do you really think that the passangers including JFK could be thrown around like that unless the limo came to a complete and sudden stop?

Why do you buy into the theory that the already slow moving limo just slowed down a little more and threw everyone forward (including JFKs head ONLY not the rest of his body)

Your theory has long played into my own thoughts on the assassination and I was very put back when you changed your views on it

Dean

But you are the right guy to answer my question, which concerns your own work, not that of others, namely: The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? Why didn't you pursue this inconsistency with zeal?

I would love to hear the answer to this question, since I guess my question and comments to Tink are invisible

John

Is it possible to merge mine and Craigs debate over Twymans "Bloody Treason" in the Doug Horne thread?

On the Brewania forum that I am a Mod at I am able to merge posts from an old thread and start a new thread with those posts

Just asking, no problem if you cant I will start a new thread with my next post to Craig

Thanks John

Dean

It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without bringing in Prof. Fetzer and David Lifton but I guess that's impossible.

Bill

Why do you keep making statements like this?

How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up?

Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration

Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic

I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic

I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic

Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late

I don't think so Dean.

You and others have taken the Doug Horne thread and made it your little debate about Noel Twyman's book.

As for discussing the Z-film or "Hawkeye Works" without mentioning Fetzer or Lifton will be necessary to get beyone any arguments and determine some facts about both the film, its chain of possession and whether it ever was at "Hawkeye Works."

My purpose isn't to win an internet forum debate, but to determine if there is any evidence of destruction of records, tampering with evidence, theft of evidence, and attempting to locate missing records that I think are still out there and weren't destroyed, like Babuska lady's film, the Secret Service records, the missing briefing boards, etc. I'm also looking for new witnesses, and damn, if they don't show up, as we now have Homer McMahon and his assistant and Dino B., all CIA officers, who, unlike Fetzer, Lifton and other alternationist, their testimony is a little bit harder to discard as foolish nonsense.

I'm looking for evidence of destruction and tamerping with records and new witnesses that can be called to testify under oath before Congress.

None of these things have anything to do with Fetzer, other than the fact that he published Lifton's article "Pig On A Leash" over a decade ago and mentined the "Hawkeye Works" angle, that nobody has done anything on since then.

If and when Congress decides to hold oversight hearings of the JFK Act, and actually look into what the ARRB discovered, and try to determine who destroyed what records and why, then the focus must be on the destroyed, missing and still wrongfully withheld records, and NOT on Professor Fetzer or what David Lifton's opinion is of Bob Groden.

There is a method to my madness, but I have to stay on track, even if you enjoy jumping around and learning Prof. Fetzer's principles on how to win internet debates.

I guess I'll have to start my own thead.

Get it?

BK

Ok Bill that clears it up a little for me

But you know how forums work, there is no way that you can control a thread and keep it on just the title topic

What I dont get is that you are saying "Hawkeye Works" has nothing to do with Fetzer, yet in the same sentence you admit that it has do with fetzer because it was in his book

I dont know about you Bill but to me Fetzer has a ton to do with Hawkeye works, he PUBLISHED it though Lifton!

And I dont want to jump tp conclusions so I will ask you one last thing

Your saying you dont want Fetzer and Lifton involed in any talks about Hawkeye works because they will argue with others about it? And you wont get the facts about Hawkeye works if Lifton and Fetzer are involved in the thread?

How does that work Bill? Your talking about the guy who wrote it and the guy who published it, if it was not for them you would never know about Hawkeye works, now you dont want those two to be a part of any talks about it because they might start arguing about it?

I hope that im wrong and am just misunderstanding what you are saying

Hi,

I know you can't keep a thread on track, but you can at least try.

I looked for a thread on Noel Twyman's book, which is very important book btw, but I couldn't find one so you can either start one or continue using the Doug Horne thread and we'll discuss Doug Horne and his work somewhere else. I'm pretty easy, either ways okay.

Well, from where I'm sitting, the original word "Hawkeye Works" uttered in regards to the Zapruder film was by Homer McMahon in talking to the ARRB, including Horne, some of which was recorded on audio tape and another version on Horne's notes.

Lifton gets wind of the "Hawkeye Works" angle and mentions it in his rather elongated Conference talk (Lancer or Z-film in Minn.?) - "Pig on a Leash," which was also filmed by David Healey and posted in segments on Youtube, and then published by Fetzer in his anthology TGZFH.

Now the ARRB records, POALeash and TGZFH have all been out for over a decade now, and nobody's done a thing with researching this further until now, we have more details in Doug Horne's Vol. IV, Chapter 14, and thanks to B and compliments of David Lifton we have the complete POALeash and thanks to David H. the Youtube version.

So from where I'm taking all this in, I don't think Prof. Fetzer needs to be consulted any further, after thanking him for the courage of publishing Lifton's POAL and the rest, despite criticism from all quarters.

You can't take a book to a Congressional Hearing and try to introduce it as evidence, but you can call a retired CIA official and have them answer questions under oath.

Therefore, we can successfully get beyond Prof. Fetzer and Dr. Lifton, even though both are qualififed to be what they call Special Expert Witnesses, and go directly to McMahon and the others who worked at the NPIC, all of whom should be required to testify fully, which they didn't do for the ARRB.

Gee Dean, you should get college credit for this stuff,

BK

I understand, thank you Bill

It just seems like you are always selling Fetzer and other alterationists short, when now that you are starting to see that we are right you should embrace Fetzer and his work.

Thats just my opinion, keep the fight going forward Bill, dont think for a second that I dont admire or care about what you are doing for the case, because I do

Dean

It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without bringing in Prof. Fetzer and David Lifton but I guess that's impossible.

Bill

Why do you keep making statements like this?

How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up?

Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration

Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic

I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic

I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic

Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late

I don't think so Dean.

You and others have taken the Doug Horne thread and made it your little debate about Noel Twyman's book.

As for discussing the Z-film or "Hawkeye Works" without mentioning Fetzer or Lifton will be necessary to get beyone any arguments and determine some facts about both the film, its chain of possession and whether it ever was at "Hawkeye Works."

My purpose isn't to win an internet forum debate, but to determine if there is any evidence of destruction of records, tampering with evidence, theft of evidence, and attempting to locate missing records that I think are still out there and weren't destroyed, like Babuska lady's film, the Secret Service records, the missing briefing boards, etc. I'm also looking for new witnesses, and damn, if they don't show up, as we now have Homer McMahon and his assistant and Dino B., all CIA officers, who, unlike Fetzer, Lifton and other alternationist, their testimony is a little bit harder to discard as foolish nonsense.

I'm looking for evidence of destruction and tamerping with records and new witnesses that can be called to testify under oath before Congress.

None of these things have anything to do with Fetzer, other than the fact that he published Lifton's article "Pig On A Leash" over a decade ago and mentined the "Hawkeye Works" angle, that nobody has done anything on since then.

If and when Congress decides to hold oversight hearings of the JFK Act, and actually look into what the ARRB discovered, and try to determine who destroyed what records and why, then the focus must be on the destroyed, missing and still wrongfully withheld records, and NOT on Professor Fetzer or what David Lifton's opinion is of Bob Groden.

There is a method to my madness, but I have to stay on track, even if you enjoy jumping around and learning Prof. Fetzer's principles on how to win internet debates.

I guess I'll have to start my own thead.

Get it?

BK

Ok Bill that clears it up a little for me

But you know how forums work, there is no way that you can control a thread and keep it on just the title topic

What I dont get is that you are saying "Hawkeye Works" has nothing to do with Fetzer, yet in the same sentence you admit that it has do with fetzer because it was in his book

I dont know about you Bill but to me Fetzer has a ton to do with Hawkeye works, he PUBLISHED it though Lifton!

And I dont want to jump tp conclusions so I will ask you one last thing

Your saying you dont want Fetzer and Lifton involed in any talks about Hawkeye works because they will argue with others about it? And you wont get the facts about Hawkeye works if Lifton and Fetzer are involved in the thread?

How does that work Bill? Your talking about the guy who wrote it and the guy who published it, if it was not for them you would never know about Hawkeye works, now you dont want those two to be a part of any talks about it because they might start arguing about it?

I hope that im wrong and am just misunderstanding what you are saying

It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without bringing in Prof. Fetzer and David Lifton but I guess that's impossible.

Bill

Why do you keep making statements like this?

How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up?

Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration

Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic

I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic

I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic

Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late

FETZER AND LIFTON CHANNEL DOUG HORNE: TRULY OR FALSELY?

We first heard of “Hawkeyeworks” at the 1998 Lancer Conference. Since that time, NPIC, Doug Horne’s interviews with Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon and associated details have become a staple of Fetzer’s series of books on the assassination. His Great Zapruder Film Hoax, published in 2003, featured a long article by David Lifton entitled, “Pig on a Leash.” Written in a kind of jaunty prose much more enjoyable to read than the usual assassination fare, this article laid out in detail Lifon’s long history with the film and his equally long attempt to show it was faked-up. Surprisingly, in a piece that runs on for 117 pages of small print, Lifton offers exactly one fact to show the Zapruder film has been altered. This fact, says Lifton, came to his attention through Doug Horne.

Horne had frequent contact with Roland Zavada as Zavada carried out his work for the AARB. According to Lifton, Horne explained to him that Zavada had come upon one significant indication that the Zapruder film was faked-up and never admitted this in his final report. According to Lifton, this signal indication of Zapruder fakery was what he called “the full flush left problem.” Here is how Lifton explained it in the first printing of his article:

"This point is crucial: in the case of the supposed camera original, there is not just “some image” in the sprocket hole area (the image doesn’t just “bleed over” a little bit); rather, the image goes all the way to the left! To the left margin of the film!

That this is so can clearly be seen even on the frames of the Zapruder film published in Volume 18 of the 26 Volumes. But is that possible? Can the Zapruder lens do that? Can it put an image on the film that is full flush left?

In connection with his ARRB work, Zavada purchased some half dozen cameras at garage sales, he took them apart, he put them back together. The man really worked hard on a wide variety of problems and issues.

And then he went to Dallas and took test shots, putting his wife in Dealey Plaza, and exposed all sorts of scenes at a variety of settings.

Then these test pictures – these test shots – went into an appendix in the final report, which was delivered within hours of the ARRB going out of existence. A report that was supposed to 'explain the anomalies.'

What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance – not a single one – could Rollie Zavada get the images to go full flush left.

It couldn’t be done, because the camera just isn’t designed that way. " (TGZFH, p. 397)

In the second printing, Lifton explained it this way:

"Turning to Figures 4-1 and 4-2 [of the Zavada Report], the Zapruder frames, the Zapruder frames Rollie had photographed at the National Archives, it was clear that these frames were out full flush left. All the way to the left.

Then Doug compared those with the test shots Rollie made in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder’s perch with one of his Zapruder-type cameras. One strip showed [his] wife standing in the street, another showed a red truck passing through. Another test shot, his figure 4-26, showed his wife standing in front of their garage in Rochester. In each case, Rollie varied the telephoto setting and, as the zoom increased, the left margin moved somewhat to the left. But, contrary to what Rollie had told me, there was quite a problem.

The test frames did not appear similar to those from the original Zapruder film. It was a simple matter of geometry: Rollie’s clearly did not go consistently full flush left." (TGZFH, p.97)

To this charge of cover-up, Rollie Zavada responded in his usual calm, mild way. As Lifton points out, “Zavada replied with a statement, posted on the Internet. He claimed his test shots proved the case – that his test shots proved full penetration of the intersprocket area...(TGZFH, p. 402).

Lifton and Fetzer must have felt that their proof in this area was wanting. In the second printing of TGZFH, they added photos purporting to show Zavada’s test shots. In the text under the test shots, appears this claim: “Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [Zavada] replicate the continuous ‘full flush left’ phenomenon seen on the previous two pages” (TGZFH, p. 400).

So let’s see if what Fetzer and Lifton (channeling Horne) say is correct. Is it true or false that using other cameras of the same make and model Zavada was unable to produce “full flush left penetration?”

I want to point out that I wasn’t swift enough to get all this straight. It was Rollie Zavada back in 2003 who called my attention to this. With respect to this later test shot he wrote on a Post-It: “Note full intersprocket image penetration.” With respect to the former test shot of the pickup truck in Dealey Plaza,"[/i] he wrote on a Post-It: “Note: Full inter-sprocket image penetration of truck scene taken in Dallas. Doug Horne missed this in my report!”

I want to make two things clear.

(1) Doug Horne had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer. When Horne’s book arrives, I look forward to seeing whether this earlier bogus claim remains in any way a part of his discussion of the Zapruder film.

(2) What Fetzer and perhaps Lifton did here is simply outrageous. They took one of Rollie Zavada’s test shots. They published it in degraded form and used that form to claim it showed the opposite of what it does show! For all I know, this was done without either Horne’s or Lifton’s knowledge and permission. Similar cases occur in other Fetzer books. In Murder in Dealey Plaza, he circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine windshield and labeled it, “The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” In The 9/11 Conspiracy, he publishes a photo of World Trade Center 7 with a caption that states, “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” The only problem is that the photo was taken in 1997 and the “modest fire at street level” is an orange Calder statue installed on the mezzanine level of the building!

Josiah Thompson

Tink

First of all my grandfathers favorite book on the assassination is "Six Seconds In Dallas" he read his copy of your book one time back when it came out, when he handed it down to me back in 1988 I read it, at that time my grandpa also had the paperback version with highlights and notes that he passed down to me as well (along with 150+ other assassination books) so I could keep the hardcover in mint condition and read the paperback as much as I wanted.

So I want to thank you for writing a great book that not only my grandpa loves but I love as well, we spent 100s of hours going over the assassination and your book was a major topic for us including the two head shot theory (that you now claim was wrong, I still think you are right about that and would love to talk to you about why you changed your mind) I hold you book as one of the centerpieces of my collection (along wih my signed copy of "Forgive My Grief vol1" by Penn Jones and my signed copy of "Post Mortem" by Harold Weisberg who signed them for my grandpa) It would be an honor if you would one day sign my hardcover copy of SSID

Now that thats out of the way, I am reading Doug Hornes vol 4 right now, and I must say that not only does Doug validate David Liftons theory in "Best Evidence" but also does the same for Fetzers "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" both of those books I agree with 100% and back them up

I have believed in alteration since reading "Bloody Treason" back in 1997 and countinued to believe and study all three of Fetzers books ending with the amazing TGZFH

I must say that your post has a bit of fear behind it, with the history of you and fetzer I must say that Dougs books are going to convince alot of researchers that the Z-film was altered

Before you put me down like your crew member Craig remember this, I have nothing but respect for you and your work Tink, and like I said I still agree with most of SSID and use a major theory in your book as part of my overall view on the assassination

However with regards to Fetzer and alteration I belive that you are wrong

Again Tink thanks for putting out a great book and being one of the first researchers on the assassination, I hope we can talk in depth about the two head shot theory and why you dont back that up anymore as well as your thoughts on alteration

Dean

Why use black and white prints that are enlarged to the point of becoming fuzzy, and also I said the limo looks the same in 302-303, not that it is needle sharp

I guess im going to have to scan the frames from "Bloody Treason"

But the one frame you posted did a good job of showing the white shoes that neither Mary nor Jean were wearing that day

Why not b/w? If you think it skews the measurements offer some empirical proof that proves your point.

Twyman said it was sharp in both 302 and 303 and you have stated you will always back Twyman. Can't have it both ways.

DO you somehow think enlargement has changed the size relationship of the highlights on top of the roll bar between 302, 303, and 306? If so please offer some empirical proof to back your claim.

Oh goodie. You complain about enlargements and now you want to scan and post images from a book that will contain a halftone screen. That's pretty stupid of you deano.

Shoes...you do love bunnies in the clouds don't you?

Of course I will always back Twyman, Twyman never said the limo was the sharpest possible in 302-303

The limo stays the same in 302-303 and the backgrounds change from blurry to sharp (not needle sharp as you like to throw into the mix for no reason at all)

Thats the bottom line and its what Twyman is saying

The funny thing is that I know your smart, but you play dumb when it comes to reading what people write, you know damn well what Twyman and I myself are saying in regards to 302-303, I know you do

But you love to twist words around and make up your own fairy tales to fit your perfect assassination photographic agenda

You are the one twisting words deano, which is not suprising, but strange given you claim to have read this book over and over.

Twyman says:

"I showed him frames 302 and 303 and I pointed out the blur int he stationary background figures as opposed to the sharp focus of the limousine in 302, and how the blur of the background figures suddenly disappeared in 303 while the limousine remains in sharp focus."

Note he claims SHARP FOCUS for the limo in both 302 and 303. Not 'kind of in focus", or "just a little out of focus" or even just "in focus". He was very specfic. He used the term "sharp focus".

Once again you come up on the short end of the stick.

As for the sharpness of 302 and 303, why don't you measure the length of the blur on the roll bar highlights along with the length of the blur in 306 and then tell us if your testing shows that 302 and 303 are in SHARP Focus.

Then see if the blur is larger in 302 than in 303 by subtracting the blur meausrement form 303 from the blur measurement from 303. If you are correct when you state; "The limo stays the same in 302-303" then your answer will be zero, If the number is ANYTHING but zero you are wrong once again.

BTW, please show us the images you used as well as your results of the measurements.

Craig you know when Twyman says sharp focus he is talking about the focus compared to the background in frames 302-303

I have already tried to explain this to you but you refuse to back down when you know what Twyman/myself are trying to say

I will post some frames and give you MY rundown on what I see

Is that ok with you?

Why use black and white prints that are enlarged to the point of becoming fuzzy, and also I said the limo looks the same in 302-303, not that it is needle sharp

I guess im going to have to scan the frames from "Bloody Treason"

But the one frame you posted did a good job of showing the white shoes that neither Mary nor Jean were wearing that day

Why not b/w? If you think it skews the measurements offer some empirical proof that proves your point.

Twyman said it was sharp in both 302 and 303 and you have stated you will always back Twyman. Can't have it both ways.

DO you somehow think enlargement has changed the size relationship of the highlights on top of the roll bar between 302, 303, and 306? If so please offer some empirical proof to back your claim.

Oh goodie. You complain about enlargements and now you want to scan and post images from a book that will contain a halftone screen. That's pretty stupid of you deano.

Shoes...you do love bunnies in the clouds don't you?

Of course I will always back Twyman, Twyman never said the limo was the sharpest possible in 302-303

The limo stays the same in 302-303 and the backgrounds change from blurry to sharp (not needle sharp as you like to throw into the mix for no reason at all)

Thats the bottom line and its what Twyman is saying

The funny thing is that I know your smart, but you play dumb when it comes to reading what people write, you know damn well what Twyman and I myself are saying in regards to 302-303, I know you do

But you love to twist words around and make up your own fairy tales to fit your perfect assassination photographic agenda

Harry, Stephen and Michael, here you go

Thanks Dean.

From my past experiences with FPCC this flyer seems genuine.

Harry

I trust your judgement Harry

Harry, Stephen and Michael, here you go

Todd:

My belief, for many years, was that the 544 Camp address appeared only on the Lamont "Crime Against Cuba" pamphlets. I was startled when Groden published a color image of one of Oswald's FPCC leaflets with the 544 address, and I wondered if it was a fake, or some artifact from the Stone film. Then Gus Russo printed one of Oswald's leaflets with the 544 address. My understanding is that it was real, that it was acquired from Oswald by NOPD officer Francis Martello when Oswald was arrested in New Orleans but kept by him for posterity, and that it ended up in the posession of Martello's widow. I understand there are also more of them. All this from a respected researcher.

Stephen, do you happen to know which book of Groden's it was where that color image was published? In The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald,

(Penguin Books 1995, p 66) Groden writes "In June he was on the streets of New Orleans passing out the leaflets. Hand-stamped on the first batch

was the address 544 Camp Street. All later handouts bore either his Magazine Street address or post office box number 30016."

Stephen, if Groden's above claim is correct, how did Martello get one in August?

On page 68 Groden repeats the claim and reproduces the stamped Camp Street address, but there is no picture of the leaflet.

In the above mentioned book, Groden does reproduce Commission Exhibit 3120 (The Crime Against Cuba) and it does show the Camp Street address.

It doesn't seem to appear here: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol26_0405b.htm

Of course when he testified before the Warren Commission, Martello told Wesley Liebeler: "I turned the original paper over to the United States Secret Service along with the pamphlets, all of the pamphlets."

My favorite Martello quote was this: "Well, as far as being capable of an act, I guess everbody is capable of an act, but as far as dreaming

or thinking that Oswald would do what it is alleged that he has done, I would bet my head on a chopping block that he wouldn't do it."

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...Vol10_0035a.htm

Finally, Gus Russo does print an alleged photo (attributed to the National Archives) of the handbill with the name L. H. Oswald

above the 544 Camp Street address, but his account of the entire episode does not seem complete or even credible. First he explains

that Oswald "didn't claim Banister's address as his own." Then on the next page, Russo posits that Oswald used the Camp Street address

in order to embarrass Banister. Russo writes that shortly before his death in 1964, Banister offered that explanation to his brother Ross.

Russo also concludes: "After much contention, it has become clear that Banister had nothing to do with Oswald or any Kennedy assassination attempts."

I'm going from memory. I recall it from one of Groden's two picture books. I thought it was in Search, but maybe it was in his Killing of JFK book. I'm not so sure I'd trust Groden's summary of dates.

As for the Martello thing, send me a personal message on this board.

Stephen and Michael

The green colored "Hands Off Cuba" FPCC pahmplet was printed in "The Killing of a President" on page 141

However, to me it looks like its not real

If you would like I could post a scan of that page so you guys could see for yourselfs

Dean

Hi Dean

H. Dean here, please do post scan of "Hands Off Cuba"

Harry

No problem Harry

Let me scan it up

Lamson's post provides further substantiation of my diagnosis of his mental defect in adopting a solipsistic attitude toward the world: if it is not part of his system of beliefs, it is non-existent or false! He even denigrates reliance upon observation because, he claims, it entails interpretation! Yet he poses as an expert on photographs and films, which cannot possibly be subjected to analysis without dependence upon observation and interpretation! So by Lamson's standards, we should dismiss his work on photographs and films BECAUSE IT IS DEPENDENT UPON OBSERVATION AND INTERPRETTION! This is a nice example of the absurdity of his position, which reduces the scope of available knowledge to the contents of his own mind! Could anything be more bizarre?

Consider his dismissal of Horne's work in this passage: Infact, his gross incompetence inthe matter of the sign edge shows quite clearly he is out of his depth. So why should his work be accepted, other than you are a sheep, unable to thinnk and reason for yourself and this fits neatly into your worldview?" That Doug, like me, is not an expert on photographs and films--much less on X-rays and autopsies--would disqualify us from having opinions on any of these matters, even when they are substantiated by the work of content-domain experts! No one who actually reads what Horne has written would confound Horne's observations with those of Hollywood experts. So what is going on here?

He writes here as though he were describing his own solipsistic methodology of rejecting anything anyone has ever done in relation to the study of JFK that he (Lamson) does not accept or has never studied, which includes most aspects of the case (by his own admission). After all, Doug sought out experts on film because he is not one of them himself! What could be more rational? Just as I solicited the assistance of David Mantik, John Constella, Jack White, David Healy and David Lifton in arranging a conference on Zapruder film deception--because each of them knows far more about photographs and films than do I! But Lamson dismisses any work by anyone who has not done it all on their own, which is an abnormal--and extremely bizarre!--mind set.

Read what Horne has done. He has consulted with experts on film restoration. They adopted a procedure that was virtually guaranteed to produce results by creating digital versions of the film with 6k pixels per frame, which could be projected on a large screen for their inspection. Of course, they would be using their powers of observation, a process that Lamson would reject--unless it were he himself making the observations!--but which is obviously what is required in this context. And what did these film restoration experts discover? That the film has been faked--and in a very crude fashion--where the blow out to the back of the head has been painted over and the "blob" painted in! Just read what Doug has written about his experience with these experts in conducting this experiment with the film:

"When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork." (By this, Rutan meant we were not looking at traveling mattes; we were looking at painted visual effects superimposed on top of the original film frames--by inference, he meant aerial imaging.) The film editor concurred with his two colleagues. To say that this was an electrifying moment would be a gross understatement.

"The considered opinions of our two film restoration professionals, who together have spent over five decades restoring and working with films of the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (when visual effects were done optically--not digitally), in that one moment superseded the statements of all those in the JFK research community who have insisted for two decades now that the Zapruder film could not have been altered, because the technology did not exist to do so. Our two restoration experts know special effects in modern motion picture films far better than Josiah Thompson, or David Wrone, or Gary Mack, or Robert Groden, or me, for that matter; and their subjective opinion [better: professional judgment] trumps Rollie Zavada's as well--a man who has absolutely no experience whatsoever in the post production of visual effects in motion picture films. And while Rollie Zavada, a lifetime Kodak employee receiving retirement pay from his former employer, would certain have an apparent conflict of interest in blowing the whistle on Zapruder film forgery if his former employer was involved in its alteration, our three Hollywood film professionals had no vested interest, one way or the other, in the outcome of their examination of the 6Kscans on August 25th of 2009." (INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, page 1361)

Doug followed the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who had consulted with Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. Now he has gone further by creating a 6k version of the film and enlisting the expert judgment of film restoration specialists, who not only know more about film that Doug Horne but know more about film than Lamson! So what is Lamson's response: "Why should we "accept" Horne's work? As usual my comments apply only the z film work. Regardless of his position at hte ARRB, Hone has zero qualifications tyo make his opinions and conclusions about the z-film meaningful."

But Horne is not reporting his findings: he is reporting those of film restoration experts! And his background as an historian makes his reports all the more appropriate and credible. Indeed, at this point in time, the number of domain experts who have concluded the film is a fake has grown to at least seven or, counting Ryan, eight! And when Dean Hagerman suggests--appropriately--that Lamson really ought to obtain Horne's book and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER HOAX (2003) to study, Lamson's response is equally bizarre: he won't read them because he already knows they have nothing of value to contribute!

"Buy the book? again why? The material is not new, and Hornes conclusions are not made from a position of expertise. The major arguments will be parroted on the web by the cultists for years, sop why buy, unless, like you, the cult demands it.

TGZFH. Re-reading will not change the material in the book, nor will some magical process turn it to fact. Its clear fact does not matter to you, so I guess I understand why you so love the book, and the cult."

We all have to appreciate that excluding available relevant information from his mind is an essential stage in the defense of his own personal worldview. If he were to access evidence contrary to his system of beliefs, that might cause him some form of emotional discomfort. So Lamson is displaying an extreme form of cognitive dissonance, which could only be expected of someone who is zealously protecting his own personal beliefs or who is seriously mentally deranged. It is simply not normal for any of us to discount the sober and detailed presentation of studies by domain experts on the subject of greatest interest to us--the authenticity of the film! And yet that is what we have from Lamson, over and over again, as a crucial element of his solipsistic methodology.

Consider, too, what he did in relation to the previous post in which I exposed him as a fraud. Here is what I wrote, which he virtually completely ignored:

Today, 06:01 AM

Post #279

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 308

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

Lamson's position, described in philosophical terms, appears to be a variation on solipsism, which maintains that the only things that are real are the contents of his own mind. This, of course, produces a severely constrained conception of reality, insofar as a mind of this kind cannot accept any information, evidence, or opinions for which it is not the source. In the case of the study of the death of JFK, its effects are profound. Consider what he has to leave out of his personal consideration, which is symptomatic of a strange but clearly solipsistic form of mentality:

* cannot accept the results of studies of X-rays by a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board-certified in radiation oncology and who is therefore an expert on their interpretation;

* cannnot accept the conclusion of a world authority on the human brain, who is also an expert on wound ballistics, that the brain shown in diagrams at the archives cannot be that of JKF;

* cannot accept the diagrams of a physician who was present during the treatment of JFK and two days later his alleged assassin, because they are not diagrams he himself has draw;

* cannot accept the proofs of Zapruder film alteration produced by Jack White, David Mantik, David Lifton, or John Costella, for the simple reason that they are not his own proofs;

* cannot accept the professional judgment of Hollywood experts on film restoration because, after all, he was not there and cannot be responsible for the opinions of others; and,

* cannot even accept that the blow-out to the back of the head can be seen--actually, observed--in Zapruder frame 374, for example, because "observation entails interpretation".

But consider the absurdity of his unwillingness to accept the established conclusions of qualified experts simply because they are not his conclusions. The kinds of observations, measurements, and experiments involved here are relatively uncomplicated and yield discoveries that are well-supported by evidence. It is reflected by the tendency to dismiss the conclusions of others as "merely opinions", as though all opinions were on a par except for his own. This is not a normal attitude toward the world and appears to indicate a serious impairment of rationality.

If each of us could only know what we can prove for ourselves, then our knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, and other disciplines would be extremely limited. This unwillingness to grant that others can possess the relevant expertise to drawn significant conclusions is the sign of an atrophied mind. Lamson, like other solipsists, insists that his way is the only way, when it is instead the only way he knows. He tries to make this bizarre state of mind into a virtue, when it has the effect of denying him access to the knowledge that other experts can provide.

Lamson insulates himself from findings he does not like by dismissing them as "mere opinions" or as "matters of interpretation". The only opinions he is willing to accept and the only interpretations he is willing to consider are his own. Using the tactics of ridicule and sarcasm, he will attempt to discredit those who threaten the insular security of his own little world by introducing knowledge that did not originate with him. No one should be taken in by this form of mental illness, which would render the conduct of life practically impossible for any normal human being.

And here what he had to say--and this is the complete post he published as his reply--in response to my analysis of his strikingly bizarre modus operandi:

Today, 06:36 AM

Post #282

Super Member

****

Group: Members

Posts: 2955

Joined: 15-November 04

Member No.: 1913

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 28 2009, 06:01 AM) *

The only opinions he is willing to accept and the only interpretations he is willing to consider are his own. Using the tactics of ridicule and sarcasm, he will attempt to discredit those who threaten the insular security of his own little world by introducing knowledge that did not originate with him. No one should be taken in by this form of mental illness, which would render the conduct of life practically impossible for any normal human being.

Lets cut to the chase and discard Fetzers babble.

I'm studying the photography of the JFK case. I have no interest nor expertise in any other aspect of case. When it comes to the photography its all quite black and white. There is simply no room for opinon when empirical fact is possible. Contrary to Fetzers warped little worldview the work I offer does not "originate from me". Its all long standing, basic photographic principle. I don't offer opinion nor interpretations. I illustrate with simple and easy to replicate experimentation the photographic principles at play and generally misused by alterationists. Its this unimpeachable evidence that works poor Fetzer into such a tizzy. He can't refute it and it destroys his opinions and conclusions. He simply can't have that give the investment he has made to his warped worldview.

Unlike Fetzer and company, I CHALLANGE the reader to NOT take my word for anything, but to rather do the work and tests for themselves.

Fetzer on the other hand prefers the old Appeal to Authority. He tells us...Trust me and my pals, after all they are experts and hold advanced degrees so we should believe what the say regardless.

But what happens when you test them? I can't say in the areas beyond the photographic but a perfect example of Fetzer pimping an "expert PhD in Physics"..that he tells us to believe because of his PhD....and who has it totally wrong is detailed here:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

The facts that destroy Costella's work do not "originate with me". I simply show you how to produce the facts and ask you do to the work and check. I don't offer an interpretation. I simply show you what happens in a specfic photographic situation. No gray...just black and white fact.

Fetzer really does not want you to check the work. He just wants you to believe. Forget about thinking for yourself and checking the work of others....Fetzer has the answers, all you need to do is "BELIEVE".

Thanks but no thanks.

Of course, all knowledge is a form of belief, since "knowledge" is defined as warranted, true belief. Since we have no direct access to truth, we have to depend upon the evidence that is available and relevant in any given case, where reliance upon domain experts is indispensable. We can't all have Ph.D.s in physics, be M.D.s who are board-certified in radiation oncology, have gained the Kennedy family's permission to study the autopsy materials and have visited the National Archives (now some nine times); or be world authorities on the human brain who are also experts on wound ballistics and have supervised an emergency medical center for the treatment of injured Japanese prisoners of war and injured Okinawans during the Battle of Okinawa, for example. Yet Lamson would have us discount their expert opinions!

This is a form of madness--unless, of course, it is being adopted as a guise to conceal covert effort to undermine some of the most important discoveries in the history of the study of the assassination! All beliefs are forms of opinion, but not all opinion are on a par! Those of the quality that I was citing are unimpeachable--unless, of course, you want to pretend that you have to have a Ph.D. or an M.D. and be board-certified in radiation oncology or be a world authority on the human brain to be entitled to have an opinion! That is especially absurd when your opinion is based upon the research of others whose credentials go beyond your own because they are Ph.D.s, M.D.s, and world authorities!

And notice the bifurcation between Lamson's privileged access to the truth and the limitations that he claims are confronted by others but not by him:

"I don't offer opinion nor interpretations. I illustrate with simple and easy to replicate experimentation the photographic principles at play and generally misused by alterationists. Its this unimpeachable evidence that works poor Fetzer into such a tizzy. He can't refute it and it destroys his opinions and conclusions. He simply can't have that give the investment he has made to his warped worldview."

But all we have are our opinions. How can Lamson's views not be "opinions" in turn? The answer, of course, is that they cannot, but in his bizarre state of mind, his work qualifies as knowledge that is opinion and interpretation-free! This, of course, is a logical impossibility, since knowledge is a special kind of opinion. Moreover, nothing that Lamson has ever had to say has caused me the least concern. Even if John Costella, Doug Horne, Jack White, David Lifton or David Mantik occasionally offers an opinion that happens to wrong, that is of no significance. Their work is typically of the highest standard. Science has the self-correcting capacity of adjusting conclusions based upon the acquisition of new evidence. We all make minor mistakes along the way. But few make the major contributions of scholars of their stature!

Lamson, however, is not really interested in truth, only in discrediting the best people who are doing the best work in advancing our understanding of the assassination and the cover-up. He talks about appeals to authority, but does not seem to understand that there are non-fallacious as well as fallacious appeals. Appealing to Einstein on phsics is non-fallacious, since he is an authority in that domain. Appealing to him about baseball card collecting, however, which is not an area of his competence would be fallacious. The appeals that I have been making are obviously non-fallacious, because the experts are qualified within their own domains--and that even extends to each of our own powers of observation in relation to the blow out which is visible in Zapruder frame 374! Apart from those with faulty vision, we are all competent to make ordinary observations of obvious phenomena within our range of personal experience! Who would want to deny that?

So what is going on here? If there are expert conclusions from bona fide authorities--on X-rays, human brains, or photographs and films--that you do not like because they undermine your objective (of obfuscating serious work on the assassination of JFK)--then dismiss it all as a matter of opinion dependent upon interpretation, as though any of your own research were some kind of exception! Espouse a solipsistic--even schizophrenic--methodology, according to which everyone has to be a domain expert to draw warranted conclusions about any of these things. Disregard the ordinary human dependence upon the work of experts and deny them credit for anything they have found, unless it fits into your own preconceived worldview! And be vile and abusive toward anyone who has the courage to confront your apparently insane, but deviously self-serving, methodology as a form of corruption of the search for truth--and hope that no one will notice!

Dean,

Notice that Lamson does not dispute David's studies of the medical evidence, which demonstrate that the blow-out was at the

back of the head. It follows that the Zapruder film, which shows the blow-out to the right front, cannot be correct. It follows

from the medical evidence that the depiction of the assassination in the Zapruder film is a work of fiction. It's that obvious.

More than forty eyewitnesses to the blow out to the back of the head were dismissed on the basis that the X-rays didn't show

it. We now know that they didn't show it because they had been altered. And we know that the film showed a "blob" blowing

out to the right front because the back defect had been painted black and the bulging brains to the front had been painted in.

These guys have a role to play. They are not serious about JFK--only attempting to debunk work that actually advances our understanding. He can't discuss HOAX intelligently because he hasn't read it. You nailed him on it. Smart remarks are his only

option. He and Colby and Thompson have reached the end of the line. 2010 is going to be a very bad year for anti-alterationists!

Getting Hollywood experts on film involved was the right move. That Lamson is going so far out of his way to discredit their professional judgment is extremely revealing. Everyone will soon understand the fakery involved here and that those who have

been working to debunk its exposure are worthy of the contempt of the nation. Doug has thereby done us all a very good turn!

Jim

I dont think Lamson has really read TGZFH

If he did he would not be saying it is all speculation and opinion

How can a logical person as you claim to be Craig be so blind to the facts presented in TGZFH?

Think what you want deano, but as you have shown you can't define fact from speculation.

I've ask more than once for you to show us the fact in that dreadful tome, fact you have checked for yourself and found to be true, and is not more bunnies in the clouds, but you can't. Why is that deano?

I can define speculation from fact

Fact: The Zapruder film is altered

Speculation: Using a DVD cover in place of a scarf and thinking its the same thing

Perfect post Jim, I agree 100%

I am glad that Doug is backing the alteration position with his extensive background with the ARRB, Vol 4 is amazing

How can Craig and Len simply refuse to buy or even accept Dougs work?

Craig I suggest you read TGZFH again, I think you must have missed pages 1-496

2010 will be a great year, im proud to back up and have the same views as Jim Fetzer, Jack White, David Healy, Doug Horne, David Lifton, Rich DellaRosa, Bernice Moore, David Mantik, Noel Twyman and others

Why should we "accept" Horne's work? As usual my comments apply only the z film work. Regardless of his position at hte ARRB, Hone has zero qualifications tyo make his opinions and conclusions about the z-film meaningful. Infact, his gross incompetence inthe matter of the sign edge shows quite clearly he is out of his depth. So why should his work be accepted, other than you are a sheep, unable to thinnk and reason for yourself and this fits neatly into your worldview?

Buy the book? again why? The material is not new, and Hornes conclusions are not made from a position of expertise. The major arguments will be parroted on the web by the cultists for years, sop why buy, unless, like you, the cult demands it.

TGZFH. Re-reading will not change the material in the book, nor will some magical process turn it to fact. Its clear fact does not matter to you, so I guess I understand why you so love the book, and the cult.

Jim that sums up Craig very well

I think Craig is at a point where he knows he and his crew will be put down for the count and Z-film alteration will be accepted by all researchers

Either he will admit his errors and join our fight for the truth, or he will quit posting forever

Well thats your opinion Craig, but we all know what opinions are like....

That and Twyman has some real nice frames in his book, and the limo in 302-303 looks exactly the same while the background is blurred in 302 and sharp in 303

So I dont think Twyman was wrong

No opinions deano....

Twyman and deano say the limo is sharp in 302-303...really?

Twyman and deano say the background is sharp in 303...really?

Why use black and white prints that are enlarged to the point of becoming fuzzy, and also I said the limo looks the same in 302-303, not that it is needle sharp

I guess im going to have to scan the frames from "Bloody Treason"

But the one frame you posted did a good job of showing the white shoes that neither Mary nor Jean were wearing that day

I think its fake

Look at the womans tan lines from a low cut bathing 2 piece suit

I dont think those were around in the 1950s

Anyone remember?