Greg Burnham

Go ahead, Craig. Find your own way. Or, you can simply agree to collaborate with me. You will not be the first individual with whom I disagree but with whom I have still cooperatively chosen to work in the hope of discovering the truth. I am not concerned with you going there without me. However, I would prefer to see what you are doing for myself. That way, I can confirm that what you report is accurate. I would think that you would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate your prowess in front of one of your skeptics. Why not allow me to see your methodology?

No. I'll do my own work, You are not required. Just pass the information along and I'll put it together. Do your own homework, then. Find your own way. Gain your own access. I'll just surprise you after you arrive.

Did you actually MEASURE or is this more of the "I see it, just believe me" crap. And if you measured it, how did you and what were the numbers... I apologize for leaving you out, Craig. Sydney has graciously granted my request that you too be included in the invitation. It was difficult though. I had to convince her that you really do "know something" about film. She (and they) didn't believe it at first, but were willing to take my word for it (just in case). So, I went to bat for you, Craig. When can you come to Hollywood? I know that you have been a very dedicated researcher of this subject for over a decade when you and I first crossed swords. I don't think that you should trust me at all. I don't think that you should take my word for it. I think that you should really see it for yourself and ask all the questions that you want and take all the measurements that you need. Since you have been such a vocal critic of this research, even though you have not yourself invested anything into actually obtaining the information one would REQUIRE to make an informed judgment about it, this should be a golden opportunity for you! I went to Dallas to film the LAST possible footage with a B&H camera, using the last available Kodachrome film, on the last November 22nd in which the film could still be processed before Kodak discontinued it... I have now viewed the actual highest resolution Z-film scans available... I am now inviting you to do REAL PRIMARY RESEARCH and come to Hollywood. I'll take you out for a good time after you concede the points. I don't take your word for anything. Your problem is you DON'T know what I might have viewed and measured. It might surprise you. I mean Sydney's is a downstream THIRD generation after all. But hey, I'll see what my schedule will allow. Pass me the information for Sydney and I'll see what I can put together. It will be interesting to compare..... You can go through me. I'll accompany you. JFKresearch@cox.net

Did you actually MEASURE or is this more of the "I see it, just believe me" crap. And if you measured it, how did you and what were the numbers... I apologize for leaving you out, Craig. Sydney has graciously granted my request that you too be included in the invitation. It was difficult though. I had to convince her that you really do "know something" about film. She (and they) didn't believe it at first, but were willing to take my word for it (just in case). So, I went to bat for you, Craig. When can you come to Hollywood? I know that you have been a very dedicated researcher of this subject for over a decade when you and I first crossed swords. I don't think that you should trust me at all. I don't think that you should take my word for it. I think that you should really see it for yourself and ask all the questions that you want and take all the measurements that you need. Since you have been such a vocal critic of this research, even though you have not yourself invested anything into actually obtaining the information one would REQUIRE to make an informed judgment about it, this should be a golden opportunity for you! I went to Dallas to film the LAST possible footage with a B&H camera, using the last available Kodachrome film, on the last November 22nd in which the film could still be processed before Kodak discontinued it... I have now viewed the actual highest resolution Z-film scans available... I am now inviting you to do REAL PRIMARY RESEARCH and come to Hollywood. I'll take you out for a good time after you concede the points.

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

Even more.."I SEE IT, JUST BELIEVE ME" Show us the DATA that proves this is not a natural shadow.... Better yet, post an 8 bit crop at around 2mb as a PNG on a website and we can all copy it pixel for pixel from our browsers. Clearly this is not what I am saying. I have viewed the evidence--far and away the highest quality scans available--on perhaps the most sophisticated equipment on the planet, and consulted with those who are experts in their field. And I do NOT think that Tink or Speer or anyone should take my word for it. That was the reason for my invitation.

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, . . ." Interesting. Which building do you want surrounded, Chief? How do you know which building the shots came from, Chief? How will the entire DPD personnel on the scene know which building you are referring to, Chief?

I just returned home after having spent the day in Burbank. I met with Sydney Wilkinson et al to view their incredibly HUGE (3rd generation) scans. When I say huge I am referring to the amount of data contained in the images. There are several observations that are worth mentioning. There is no question as to the existence of a BLACK PATCH in Z-317. It isn't merely suggested there--it is OBVIOUSLY there. There are several other frames that display similar evidence of "patchwork" having been applied. This is not a guess. It is simply inescapable. I invite everyone to look at the current logo that GOOGLE employed today in protest of congressional censorship of the internet. Can you tell that the letters are being obscured by a BLACK PATCH? I bet you can. So too, in these 3rd generation extremely high quality Z-film scans it is blatantly in your face. Sydney gave me permission to personally invite Tink to accompany me on my return trip to DELUXE Studios in the near future. See, it's important that Tink gets to actually see the evidence for himself before stepping in it. Therefore, here's an open invitation, Tink. Let me know when you want to go. Pat Speer, I also invite you to ride along. Just let me know when.

Excellent points, Jim. More interesting to me is the fact that the authors themselves appear to need to be reminded of the significance of what this means! That the photographic evidence is inconsistent with the voluminous eyewitness testimony is simply astounding. That the authors themselves have abandoned their earlier, very well thought out, positions--merely because the photographic evidence (as it now appears) does not support it--is disappointing. At the very least, one would hope that they would seek to find out why the discrepancy exists instead of simply dismissing it as though it was an expected outcome. It is anything, but, expected.

That's not the point. Of course you weren't offended personally, they were not directed your way. This has nothing to do with "who it is" -- Gary. The comments are inappropriate and somewhat disruptive and therefore should not be tolerated. I think this should be a level playing field where moderation is avoided when possible, but evenly applied independent from the posters popularity. I didn't notice an original thought...but maybe I missed them. I hope Craig's suggested action has resolved the issue. You, of course, didn't notice any original thought, there were none. This forum hasn't produced too many orginal thoughts lately, instead we have the same argument retreads, the same deliberate misreading of posts, the condescending intellectual aloofness, the general lack of civility which has caused posters such as Lee Farley (who was bringing original thoughts to the forum) to leave. I am truly sorry, you found Craig's post so offensive. You are right the poster shouldn't matter - I am sorry for suggesting you exaggerated offence. Most of all I am sorry you appear to have went out of your way to read my post in the worst way possible at every point. I can't imagine how you would've replied if I was trying to be insulting!! Gary, I will reply in a PM as this is not between you and me.

That's not the point. Of course you weren't offended personally, they were not directed your way. This has nothing to do with "who it is" -- Gary. The comments are inappropriate and somewhat disruptive and therefore should not be tolerated. I think this should be a level playing field where moderation is avoided when possible, but evenly applied independent from the posters popularity. I didn't notice an original thought...but maybe I missed them.

Hi Jim, I would like to nip this in the bud, lest any responses escalate this into a row which cuold potentially derail and ruin this thread. You appear to imply the slides at the 6th Floor 'going missing' is linked directly to Josiah Thompson. There may well be purely semantic arguments which refute my reading of this - nevertheless, can I ask, for the betterment of debate and avoidance of any abrasive responses - that you either remove this sentence, or state clearly you hold Josiah Thompson innocent of any linkage to 'missing slides'. If you have clear and compelling evidence for your assertion about Josiah Thompson or the missing slides, please produce it - however hunches, whilst usefully intuitive tools, will not be enough in this case. As forum member, I like everyone else I can't wait to see the new slides - but until then, for me, the patch issue is a pointless debate at this stage. To All - can we please limit the personal insults and innuendo - this only tends to escalate rows. No matter how cleverly they are formulated. Insults are insults. Many Thanks, Gary In all due respect, Gary, where have you been when Craig has suggested that drug use accounts for positions held by researchers with whom he disagrees?

Tommy, You are begging the question. A great portion of this thread has revolved around the question of Zapruder film authenticity: Is it or is it not authentic? Therefore, using the Z-film frame count in order to measure the events and/or the position of the actual physical elements is fallacious. In other words, CHANEY is a witness, indeed, he is a qualified witness (regarding competence of judging distances) due to the nature of his job. Where photographic evidence is at odds with key qualified eyewitness testimony the former's reliability does not stand. Photographic and film evidence require the corroboration of witnesses in order to even be admissible in a courtroom. Chaney's testimony is admissible without the Zapruder film. The Zapruder film requires corroboration by witnesses. You have it backwards, my friend.

Craig, I would like to cite Article 4 and invite you to edit your posts that reference any suggestions that members with whom you disagree are doing so because they are impaired due to the ingestion of drugs. "Shrooms" is a reference to psilocybin. You asked me earlier in the thread: "What are you smoking?" -- a veiled allusion to a mind altering substance. These types of comments are inappropriate on multiple counts, the very least includes that those who read these boards (including children) are left with the impression that serious researchers are under the influence, which is simply unacceptable. I also put the moderation team on notice. If they were concerned that Hood's attorneys might find something actionable...a word to the wise is in order.

A question or two for Tink and Craig: If optical scans showed that the black patch was definitely irregular (compared to appropriate control areas in the film) would either of you concede that the film was altered? If not, why not? If not, precisely what would constitute proof for for you? Please be specific.

I am fascinated mostly because I am apparently too dense to comprehend this game.

No disagreement from me. But aside from its usefulness as an example of propaganda, the topic of disinformation is an uncomfortable reminder to me of some dreadful experiences in debating with debunkers. Not on the JFK topic (this year anyway), but other topics in current intrigue. If no one is hosting or promoting high school and college classes on the techniques of disinformation and debunking of conspiracies, where do you point people to read authoritative documents on those? I don't remember seeing any specific pointers on the Education Forum. Debating with debunkers is very tricky I've discovered - full of traps. It would be nice to have a subforum and library just for instruction on that subject. It's called the Library at the Angleton School of Counter-Intelligence, Georgetown University.

Everyone here knows where I stand on this issue, and why... but that was not determined by images on a computer monitor because only so much "information" can be displayed in this medium. Web-browsers are limited to 72 dpi. So, even a very large, high resolution file that is uploaded to a server that can handle its girth will not display "true" on the monitor. The attempt to speculate about what the "in person" direct empirical observations of the SCANS would reveal vs what is displayed on our respective monitors via a wholly inadequate web-browser's limitations is specious, at best.

Great post, David Lifton. -- 'nuff said...

So, Craig Lamson has successfully hijacked yet another thread! BRAVO Craig! Craig, I have a few questions for you. I would appreciate it if you would attempt to answer them DIRECTLY. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from AD HOMINEM attacks--direct or indirect--as the latter are COMPLETELY LOST on the moderation team! 1) Why is there no "turn onto Elm Street from Houston Street" seen in the extant Zapruder Film? [Zapruder told the Warren Commission that he filmed the turn. Where did it go--and why?] 2) Why is the SS-100-X "gliding" along on Elm Street, as though it is "sliding on ice" and not in contact with the asphalt? [this is not an interpretation--it is empirically observable] 3) Why is the Stemmon's Freeway sign at an angle consistent with it having been "painted in" -- IT IS FLAT -- rather than naturally occurring (angled consistent with the curve of Elm Street)? 4) Why is Zapruder's image obscured, as is Sitzman's, IN EVERY AVAILABLE FILM, PHOTOGRAPH, and even in every RECOLLECTION of the eyewitnesses? (Even Zapruder had difficulty finding HIMSELF in his WC testimony and only ASSUMED he must have been there)! 5) Why are there indications (in the physical elements of the motorcycles) of EXTREME braking and rapid acceleration (within the sprocket hole images) that are not evident in the film itself? (notice the compression of the front forks vs the rapid subsequent expansion when no such corresponding motion is seen elsewhere in the film) 6) How is it that Connally held on to his hat AFTER he had already been hit? (this has been established elsewhere. If you are unaware--do some research). 7) Why isn't there blur in the stationary objects if the limo, which was not blurred, was indeed moving within the same frame? 8) How is it that Greer was capable of the impossible "head turns" that we see? 9) Why was the Stemmon's Freeway sign REMOVED post haste forever from the scene of the crime? 10) Why did "officials" illegally confiscate all photographic/film evidence under the "color of authority" that day? 11) Why isn't Chaney's motoring to the lead car seen in the Zapruder film? 12) Why is Clint Hill's recollection of the events at odds with what we see in the Zapruder film? 13) Why do more than a dozen witnesses say the limo STOPPED when the film shows no such thing? 14) Why do SCORES of witnesses say the limo either stopped or dramatically slowed down when the film shows no such thing? 15) Why is there no brain/blood/skull matter present on the trunk as seen in the Zapruder film when Officer Hargis was struck by a skull fragment while he was to the rear of the limo? 16) Why is Jackie in almost as pristine condition as CE 399 is, with no blood or brain matter on her in the film, yet ALL witnesses who saw her reported the opposite? 17) Why are the bystanders on the north side of Elm seemingly MOTIONLESS--like wax figures? Inquiring minds want to know...

G'day Mate, Glad you could join us.

Craig, You are trading in double talk. It is obvious. I haven't time for bafoons who masquerade as know-it-alls. Let's see... where is that "IGNORE A MEMBER" option again? Oh yeah, there it is. Goodbye.

Craig, I believe you have just proved my point. If you are now claiming that Costella's frames are adequate to the task, why did you criticize them? As I said: Post FULL FRAME images of 302 and 303 together from a source of your own choosing and show us that there is no difference in BLUR between the frames. If you are claiming that the blur differential is caused by Costell'a "distortion" of the film, prove it.

Lets show YOUR utter fail Burnham. This is not about the disparity of the blur, it is about Fetzer's claim that the limo is STOPPED in 303 and that the background is sharp. Try and get with program, if you have have ability. Adjacent frames can have HUGE disparity in bluring and not be at all suspect. Overpanning for example can produce larger blurs that a sustained pan. Lets be consistent and use the Costella frames...303 Clearly the limo is not stopped as the highlights on the roll bar show blur... And clearly the background is not sharp as the blur on Moorman's legs shows... Another EPIC Burnham fail. Craig, Perhaps you'd be willing to post both 302 and 303 FULL FRAME, instead of cropped, from any source of your choosing. Post them one above the other. I would like to see a comparison of the blur in 302 with the non-blur of 303. To do this, I need to be able to see the background. For instance, Toni Foster is very blurred in 302 but not in 303. Thanks--

I invite Craig Lamson to post frames Z-302 and Z-303 from ANY SOURCE of his choosing. Perhaps he can then demonstrate the inferiority of the Costella frames. Perhaps he can show us how the images in the frames that he posts do not demonstrate the SAME extreme disparity of blur that we see in the Costella frames. Perhaps he will just go away or FAIL.