John Costella

Sally and I will be at Lancer, in tourist mode. We'll be at the Adolphus Wednesday through Sunday, so I'm hoping to meet in the flesh as many of the people in the community that get the chance to be in Dallas as possible, regardless of whether they are going to Lancer, COPA, both, or neither. I'm especially looking forward to meet those who particularly dislike my work. There are no constraints of forum rules or etiquette at a bar or on the grass in the Plaza, so here's your chance to let rip!

sigh..... http://www.assassina...arch.com/zfilm/ David, I think you missed Craig's point. His hyperlink is to my "combined edit", which is where all the colour frames you have posted come from. (snip...) John John... The only point CL was trying to make, imo, was that there are indeed 486 frames. His disdain for you comes thru most every post... I KNOW you used other film (without the Intersproket area images) to replace the damaged/missing frames. I hope you've read thru my and C.Davidson's math on the zframes and timings and know how important 156, and the 207 sequences are.... That there are also problems with frames 340 and 350 is also of no surprise as this is the key area, that is corrected for the actual placement of the 313 shot, occurs at z341/2 I happen to think your contributions have been ginormous and thank you each and every time I use the zframes.... I happen to believe that MANY FRAMES of what was the Zfilm were removed and that the "original" was then recreated.... and I think 8mm copy 0184 is key.... (snip...) David, I know exactly where Lamson sits, don't worry about that. But when he points out a factual truth (that the "splicing" evident in these frames implies nothing about the original film) -- and when I'm the "splicer" myself! -- I'm going to say so, regardless of anything else. Do the "damaged" frames in the "original" film have significance? Quite possibly (although they could also be distractions). Do frames 341, 350 and 486 "lost" by MPI have any significance? Less likely, in my opinion, but it's also possible. If you've seen my Duluth presentation, or read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, then you'd know you that I'm the last person you'd have to convince that the film is a complete fabrication. If you'd like to email me directly the details of (or links to) your analyses of the "damaged" sequences I'll take a look. Unfortunately I don't get to follow the forum regularly. John

sigh..... http://www.assassina...arch.com/zfilm/ David, I think you missed Craig's point. His hyperlink is to my "combined edit", which is where all the colour frames you have posted come from. I originally created this set in early 2003 (you can see them all over the net with the blue mask around them; there was a historical reason I did this), and then improved the processing in 2006 (without adding the blue mask this time). You're showing frames from the current (2006) set, as shown on the page linked to by Craig. There was never a splice alleged at 341 or 350 by anyone. These are two of the three frames "lost" by MPI when they created the 1998 DVD that these frames (originally) came from. (They also managed to "lose" the last frame, 486.) The frames damaged and missing around 155-156 and 207-212 are that way on the "camera original" film that MPI scanned. Before 2003 I ran some processes to try to "reconstruct" as much of the missing frames (and parts of frames) from the copies of them on Groden's videos. (I tried getting some digital originals from him back around 2001, but that went nowhere.) This includes trying to position them correctly relative to where the sprocket holes would have been, removing some distortions / damage in his copies of copies, and trying to get the colour balance to match that of the MPI scans. Some parts of the Groden frame images were so damaged or distorted that I ended up just smudging them with a paint program, to remove the impression that the damage or artefacts were part of the original. Likewise where I stitched parts of reconstructed Groden frames to the MPI versions of the "camera original". All of this "splicing" was done by yours truly, this century. I don't know why you think that they are "WCR" or "SS" splices. I've tried to make it pretty clear what I did and why. John

Agreed, Monk. Others were on the (short) list and at least one recipient has responded to the entire list. However, still unconfirmed. The email (by all appearances from Jack's account, although this can be faked) was signed by two other people, names unknown to me. I assume (if it is genuine) that they had no idea whom to send the notification to. The short list of people it was sent to might have been one particular list of contacts they found on his computer. I will shortly be offsite and away from computer contact for the next three days. This is one case where I wish I am absolutely wrong.

I received an email from Jack White's email account a short time ago, informing of his passing on Monday, June 18. I assume the email is genuine. A sad day. John Costella

[Edit: David added a section to his post. See above for the full edited post. --JPC] Agree completely, David. Apologies if I borrowed your argument about the head snap being the result of frame deletion -- I remember you explaining it well in the past. Fascinating quote from Jack Bell. I am sure I've seen -- and glossed over -- the "rising with a telephone and waving" quote before. Is it only in this one place, and it's just been quoted many times? Or is there someone else who actually described this same event? I wonder about those sorts of things too. Without corroboration, each of them is lower on the scale of evidence. It would be nice to see a genuine film one day, to see which of these "anomalous" observations did actually occur. (I have no doubt that some will be wrong. I doubt that most will be wrong.) And I have to wonder if Chaney perhaps reacted to this "waving ahead", acting as a human messenger. Anyway, enough for wondering. A useful activity, but no substitute for the hard evidence. John IMHO: the Zapruder film was altered to create evidence that would be considered superior to the eyewitness accounts. Without a film which could function as a "gold standard" (of sorts), the eyewitnesses testimony would rule the day, and that would lead one to conclude that the car stopped--and that would immediately implicate the Secret Service. So if all those witnesses are correct, then that was certainly a primary motive for the "editing"--and I'm putting the word in quotes, because I no longer believe mere "editing" explains what we have here. In any event, once one is faced with eliminating the car stop, then simple physics--i.e., Rate x time = distance--results in a most uncomfortable fact: that the car-stop (or even a serious slow down) can not be eliminated without introducing, as an artifact, an acceleration in the backward motion of JFK's body. There is really no way around that; unless one completely redraws all the imagery. And that's why I believe today--and have for many years--that the backward "snap" is an artifact of the editing/fabrication of the film. But let's move on to another matter--and why I deliberately inserted the word "fabrication." Consider the account of a credible witness, AP Reporter Jack Bell, who was in the back seat of the press car, just behind Mayor Cabell's car (which was behind the LBJ followup car "Varsity"). Here is what Jack Bell wrote, as it appeared in the NY Times of Saturday morning, November 23, 1963: "Four cars ahead, in the President's Continental limousine, a man in the front seat rose for a moment. He seemed to have a telephone in [his] hand as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on." Nowhere in the existing film is any footage showing this event; i.e., showing Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who was the senior agent in charge, standing up, or "rising" for a moment, with a telephone in his hand, "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on." Not only is there no image of Kellerman rising, there is definitely no image of him "waving" to a police cruiser "to go on." Did Jack Bell imagine this? Was he just confused? Or is this another fact that --somehow--been consigned to the dustbin of history (Trotsky's phrase), because of the "editing" of the Zapruder film. So now we come face to face with the serious nature of the problem, and why I am putting the word "editing" in quotes. I have examined this film meticulously, frame by frame. There is not the slightest hint that the image of Roy Kellerman rises, or shows him "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead." Yet we do have plenty of images of Kellerman, after JFK has been hit in the head. So. . . what's going on here? What happened to that event? How was it made into a "non-event"? If what Jack Bell saw actually happened, then the extant "Zapruder film" has to be more than merely "edited." There has to be some serious fabrication, and graphics performed, in order that (a) what was originally present to have disappeared, and then (b ) for the sequence of images we have of Kellerman to appear as they do: crouched over for some frames, perhaps on the radio, but certainly not "rising" up, or waving to the police cruiser up ahead, to move on. But back to basics: If this film had been altered (and/or fabricated) in a manner that was "satisfactory", it would not have been locked up by Life, for 12 years. Furthermore: had Robert Groden not made copies from the 35mm copies made by Moses Weitzman, and then broadcast it on national TV (on Geraldo, March, 1975), the Zapruder film might have remained under wraps many years beyond March 1975. Without that national broadcast, I wonder whether there would ever have been an HSCA investigation. DSL 1/20/12; 3:45 AM Los Angeles, CA

[Edited to remove sunglasses smiley instead of ( B ). I'll learn eventually.] [second edit: Of course, you also add in an imperceptible (in real time) forward head motion of some inches from 312 to 313, which completely trumps the backwards motion after 313. Good physics party trick.] Tink, A good question that I'm often asked, by young school students and seasoned TV reporters alike. Following your "what if", let's (for the sake of argument) assume that the Z film was fabricated. LIFE published some images from "an 8mm film of the assassination" in muddy black and white within days of the assassination. This locks in (a) the fact that there was at least one muddy, possibly black and white, 8 mm film taken, and ( B ) some "key frames". Why (in this scenario) was that allowed? That's a sub-question. Let's assume that either (i) it was known that there was a film taken (be it Honest Abe or anyone else) or (ii) it was deemed desirable that a film of the assassination exist. What happens now (or without (ii)) if there is no film of the assassination (never existed, or lost, destroyed, blurry, etc.)? Then all the other evidence becomes the main focal point. If you can't see with your own eye what happened, then you actually have to listen to the eyewitnesses and build up your own mind's eye view of it. That's far more dangerous. By controlling the relatively clear, comprehensive motion picture film of the assassination, you control what people believe happened. (Even today, members of this forum state events from the assassination as if they were fact, simply because they've seen them on the film -- even when it disagrees with eyewitnesses; the film is assumed to "trump" the eyewitnesses, because it's physical, objective truth. It is -- if it can be proven to be genuine.) Why the backward head snap? Because those LIFE images contained images showing the President forward with an intact head, and then back against the seat with a shot head. You eliminate the limo slow / stop, and you have to get from A to B within half a second or so. There's no way of doing it without having either (A) the head snap or ( B ) blowing out the "six seconds" timeline and reintroducing the significant slowing / stopping of the limo. What happens next? The film is a mess. The Tague bullet necessitates the Specter fairy tale. All evidence of shots -- except the 313 paint job -- is removed from the film. All blood and gore (again, except 313) is removed. And so it's locked up for 12 years. Apart from renegade authors taking photos of copies of it at LIFE and others bootlegging 58th generation copies snaffled from the subpoenaed film, it's not until Groden is allowed to add a clear copy to his growing assassination collection that it really starts to get out. And what do we get from what is there? 45 years of debate about what the film we do have even shows. Ridiculous arguments about cheeks allegedly puffing out and lapels flapping as substitutes for actual evidence of shots. (I won't speculate about the patch on the back of the head until I see some of these materials myself.) John

What's not clear to me is whether this is even possible. From your post it sounds like it's "eyes only" at the moment. J good news, Monk.... Could've just emailed me or called me John. Whatever.

As I'm not sure when I'll next be near Burbank, is it at all possible for Sydney Wilkinson et al to throw a scan or three onto a DVD and mail it across the Pacific? There are other moves afoot to get the NARA scans, but I'd be interested to see what everyone's excited about in Burbank. Thanks in advance, J good news, Monk....

Tink, We need to establish some agreed terminology. The Zapruder film shows the limo slowing gently -- almost imperceptibly -- but continuing to glide down Elm Street. Many people have made these measurements, and I did them myself back in 2002 or so. (Interestingly -- coincidence or not? -- the slight rate of slowing, together with the trigonometry of Dealey Plaza, leads to the very curious result that the distance from the sixth floor window increases at a constant rate in the Z film during this slowing. Remarkable coincidence -- or is this telling us something about the storyboard created by the Z film's fabricators?) The best way for anyone to determine for themselves what they think of the slowing shown in the Z film is to look at this video: In any case, let's call this "the gentle slowing shown by the Z film". (And the other films, of course -- I agree that they both agree with the Z.) In contrast to this -- not seen in any of the three films -- is a violent braking, with the occupants jostled, and the limo coming to either a complete stop, or a rolling stop, for some seconds. Let's call this "the limo stop", even if it was a rolling stop. If this limo stop actually happened, then the genuine version of that YouTube video above would be much longer, and would show the limo slow, stop / roll, and accelerate again. Don't try to confound the two. You believe in the former. I believe in the latter. I've written and said plenty about Chaney, so I'll ignore your cherry-picking with regard to him driving up to the lead car. John

Tink, Nice argument, except that you have made a subconscious assumption -- which seems reasonable from your conception of the assassination, but stands out like a sore thumb against mine: you assume that the limo never slowed / stopped. My conception of the assassination discards the extant photographic evidence. In my mind's eye, the limo braked suddenly and came to either a complete stop, or a "rolling stop" (like many people do when driving through a Stop sign). In this view of the assassination, there are many seconds around the head shot(s), which might be described as "the start of pandemonium breaking loose" -- interrupted only by Greer flooring the accelerator and the limo "jumping out of the street" and off under the Triple Underpass. The motorcycle cops would have slowed, weaved, circled. Clint Hill ran forward and (unlike our current version of the Z film) did reach Jackie, put her back down in the seat and cover the two, as he has said for 48 years that he did. Who knows -- another secret service agent may have crossed between the cars and started running for the Depository (which, from where they all were on Elm, simply means running back up Elm Street -- the insertion of the detail that it was towards the Depository, specifically, and not, say, the Dal-Tex building, could have come after the event, after the Depository was identified as the source of the shots); after all, everyone agrees that some sort of noise came from behind, whether that was a distraction or a genuine shot. In this view of the assassination, there is more than enough time for Chaney to see some of these things -- that would only take a couple of seconds -- and still drive up to the lead car to tell them that all was not well. The limo may well have jumped out of the street as he was getting there -- I'm not saying there were minutes to spare here, but five or ten seconds makes a big difference. (Six seconds, maybe?) Remember that it takes time for the limo to decelerate, and then to accelerate again (even if it was a powerful engine), let alone the time taken when it was stopped or rolling. (Lifton made this point well in his Duluth presentation.) I know you reject this entire scenario, but I'm sure you will agree that you can't disprove one part of it by assuming that the whole thing is false. John

Tink, Thanks. We disagree on much, but at least our interactions are consistent. I am pleased that you take no offence at my recognition of your modus operandi. Adversaries can still harbour a degree of mutual respect, in some areas at least. I have had discussions with a mutual acquaintance -- whose motives (I am sure you won't mind me saying) I trust far more than yours -- and there seems to be some scope for me to get access to some of this material. Let's see how that pans out. It almost goes without saying that (if it does pan out) I'll report whatever I find -- and that won't necessarily be restricted to the back of the head. John

Hang on a minute. Jim, you believe the Secret Service agents were complicit, right? And that they knowingly drove JFK into the kill zone. But you say that it's absurd for a complicit motorcycle cop to escort the limo into the kill zone? I don't necessarily ascribe to either, but I find neither of them absurd. If one or more officers (of either type) had foreknowledge, it's impossible to know the extent or details of that knowledge. Who knows what they were told? I doubt it would have been a description of what eventually happened on Elm Street -- which itself was almost certainly a stuff-up anyway. Saying that the motorcycle cops must be innocent because their accounts undermine the official story is ridiculous -- and you don't even extend the same assumption to the Secret Service agents. Have you actually read what they told the Warren Commission? By your criterion, they'd be as sweet as roses too. I don't find Lifton's all-shots-from-the-front scenario to be absurd at all. I don't believe that he's proved it to be the case beyond reasonable doubt -- so I don't ascribe to it as the sole possible answer -- but it's an interesting scenario that has a degree of simplicity and elegance to it. I've certainly worried about the amount of three-dimensional space endangered by the bullets-from-all-directions scenario. That concern doesn't rule it out either, but it does make it a more complicated scenario to plan. Doesn't anyone else find it remarkable that there was precisely one "innocent bystander" hit -- Connally? (Or maybe two, if the reports of a shot Secret Service agent were actually true.) When you look at Elm Street in hindsight, you can convince yourself that it makes sense, because of the lack of people down there, and the angles, and the position of the limo, and so on. But that's with hindsight. Planning for that scenario when you don't know exactly where everything, and everyone, is a different story. John

David, Agreed -- very interesting, particularly that Chaney was yet another limo stop witness. As to what JFK (or anyone else) was doing after the first shot, we really don't know, and won't know until (and if) we ever see genuine photographic evidence of the event. I'm wondering if the piece of skull is the same one Clint Hill said was on the back of the seat when he grabbed Jackie, pushed her down into the seat, and covered the two of them. (Missing from the Z film, but likely to have happened while the limo was stopped.) Or was it yet another piece? The way the article is written implies that Chaney saw the piece of skull before motoring forward to the lead car, which would be quite possible in real life when the limo stopped, but it's not definitive. It's quite possible that Chaney was in front of the limo, in real life. Motoring forward to the lead car would then make most sense for him, because he would have been closer to it than some (all?) of the other motorcycle cops. I'm interested by the distances. Chaney had obviously been told the party line -- shots from the 6th floor. I'm curious about the "110 feet". Not "about 100 feet". Where on earth did that quite precise number (110) come from? The "50 feet or less" distance doesn't tally with it (not having all my maps and measurements at hand, but Wikipedia tells me the 6th floor was about 60 feet in the air, which sounds about right), and 50 with 60 doesn't give you 110 -- unless you just add them together instead of using Pythagoras; is that what Chaney did?? Could he have been told that the shooter was 50 feet behind the car and 60 feet in the air? Maybe it's nothing more than Chaney pulling numbers out of his arse, but it reminds me of the Paul Mandel article in the Memorial Edition of LIFE, which had frame numbers and distances that clearly correspond to an earlier version of the faked-up Zapruder film than we have today. Of course, the Chaney account is even earlier -- he's telling us the storyboard for the assassination as it was on 23 November. John I just took a careful look at this particular interview, which I don't remember seeing before. In any event, just giving it a "close reading" (a term James Angleton might have used) makes me realize the terrible opportunity lost to history, because the WC attorneys either were told to "lay off," or simply did not realize the importance of aggressively pursuing the early accounts of the motorcycle patrolmen who flanked the car in this affair. Let me state, at the outset, my bias. Almost certainly, you cannot have a "motorcade assassination" (and that's what this was) without the motorcycle escort being complicit--at the very least, they had to be paid off, and instructed to "hang back," "do nothing," "go slow" etc. Take a close look at this particular interview, apparently conducted on 11/23, and there are many avenues which would have been ripe for further questioning. Immediately below is the interview, with my interjections. Below that, for those who are interested, is an unblemished typed version. OK. . here's the one with my interjections: FIRST SHOT WAS A MISS, OFFICER SAYS Dallas-A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin’s first shot missed entirely. DSL COMMENT: How the heck does Chaney know that the "first shot missed entirely." What is the source of that idea? The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve. DSL COMMENT: Chaney was not "in front" - - - why did he say he was?? The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building DSL Comment: How does Chaney know that?? . . . about 50 feet or less behind the President’s car. DSL Comment: . . And how does Chaney know that, on 11/23, when this interview supposedly took place? . . . From the sixth floor to the president, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated. Chaney was an infantryman in Europe in World War II with experience with sharpshooting. “When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,” Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder. DSL INTERJECTION: This is nonsense. And similar to Roy Kellerman's false statement that JFK reached behind his shoulder with his right hand--an action not shown on the Z film, and which obviously did not take place. Chaney's report about JFK "looking back over his left shoulder" raises a similar issue. These bozo's did't realize there would be enough of a filmed record to establish that JFK did no such thing. A second or two after the first shot, the second shot him. “It was like you hit someone in the face with a tomato. DSL COMMENT: Highly original. . but no one reports any such thing. Blood went all over the car. “There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled, “Let’s get out of here.’” DSL Comment: As a matter of fact, that's not quite the statement reported by others. But more important, AP Reporter Jack Bell says that Kellerman actually stuood up in the car, and motioned the lead car to move ahead --again, something not visible on the Z film, and something not reported by Chaney. Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out. DSL COMMENT: Well, this is interesting. So Chaney is, basically, a "car-stop witness." A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building DSL Comment: Its not clear which officer this would be. Almost certainly, not Officer Baker, who would have been well behind Chaney. So who is this "other" officer who, says Chaney, "ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building." Is this a made-up fiction, or exaggeration? Or are we dealing with another event that has been erased from the film? In any event, it should have been the basis for serious questioning. “I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area. DSL comment: Well, at least he says he did that--which (as I recall) is confirmed by Chief Curry, and Sorrels, the issue being exactly when it occurred. “I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,” Chaney said. “A piece of his skull bone was lying on the floor board of the car,” Chaney said. DSL Interjection: Was this at Parkland? If so, not according to Clint Hill, who said it was in the rear seat. So. . is this another Chaney exaggeration? Or false statement? Or was there in fact a piece of skull bone actually lying on the floor of the car? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know. Chaney died long ago, and , more important, the WC attorney didn't realize the importance of calling him as a witness, and questioning him closely, with a record of his prior statements (such as this one) sitting in front of them. Too bad. HERE IS THE WHOLE INTERVIEW, RETYPED, and without my interjections: FIRST SHOT WAS A MISS, OFFICER SAYS Dallas-A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin’s first shot missed entirely. The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve. The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building about 50 feet or less behind the President’s car. From the sixth floor to the president, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated. Chaney was an infantryman in Europe in World War II with experience with sharpshooting. “When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,” Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder. A second or two after the first shot, the second shot him. “It was like you hit someone in the face with a tomato. Blood went all over the car. “There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled, “Let’s get out of here.’” Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out. A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building “I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area. “I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,” Chaney said. “A piece of his skull bone was lying on the floor board of the car,” Chaney said. * * * http://24.152.179.96...1E14/Chaney.png

It's possible that Lifton has been scamming us -- or someone scammed him -- and his scans have been altered to cover up how black they originally were. But I still don't understand: if they fabricated an entire film, why would "paintwork" even be considered? You just have to look at the "crater" to realise that the President after 313 is just a fabricated set of images. I simply don't understand this fixation on a "lower-tech" version of alteration. Perhaps it's because it's something that even those who believe the Z film to be authentic might considered possible (i.e. that someone painted over it). If that's on the table, then just examine the damn "camera original' and look for the paint! J

Again, the back of the head is the same darkness as other parts of the frame, and the door is darker than the back of the head. I can save you the trouble of dealing with Lamson: motion blur. Connally has no face either. The camera is [pretending to be] panning backwards at the same rate as JFK's head is [pretending to be] going back and to the left (relative to the limo). Look at the door handle to get a fix on the amount of blur. That (and maybe some motion on Jackie's part) is enough to explain it away. (Note: physically possible -- that's my criterion.) (People who believe the Z film to be genuine, ignore words in [square brackets].) (There's plenty we can all agree on, scientifically, even if we can't agree on the square brackets.) J But you're more than a conservative -- you're a rabid Kennedy-hater. With an agenda. Nice to see you contradict your earlier denial. Something about fantasy and reality, was it? Now we'll see Craig Lamson's true talent -- blowing smoke while back-pedaling. To add to the discussion, I'm posting two thumbnails here, both cropped to (a) focus on the back of the head and (b ) be small enough to permit posting here. These are crops of Z-321 and Z-323. To me, it seems clear that the back of the head has been darkened. I'm leery of the word "patch" because that implies a quasi rectangular area with very sharp borders--i.e., either one is "inside" the "patch" or "outside" of it. l'm not sure exactly how this was done--just that the back of the head appears to have been darkened, in the general area where the Dallas medical team saw an exit wound. Also, please note: Jackie has facial features in these two frames. Only in frame 317 does it appear that she has none at all. Perhaps Mr. Lamson can address this matter of why Jackie appears to have lost all facial features in frame 317. Craig, I know you're an expert in all matters optical, anatomical, and political, so perhaps you can venture a guess, or a hypothesis. For example: 1) The Dealey Plaza "bird" hypothesis At the same time as a large bird flew overhead (or some other celestial phenomenon occurred) casting a dark shadow on the back of Kennedy's head (in beautiful sunlit Dealey Plaza, at "high noon"). Moreover, Jackie was so shocked at what she was witnessing that the blood simply drained from her face, and so all facial detail disappeared--but for just one film frame. But then, within just a few eighteenths of a second, everything changed, and --voila--Jackie "regain composure" and facial features returned! Moreover, this occurred during the same general period where dozens of witnesses thought the car slowed --and at least one dozen said it stopped completely. (2) The Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis Dealey Plaza was like the Bermuda Triangle...and so all sorts of weird and essentially inexplicable phenomena occurred at the time JFK was shot. A dark cloud was cast on the back of JFK's head, while at the same time dozens of people thought the car stopped, and at the same time, Jackie, staring in shocked disbelief, simply lost her facial features for a brief eighteenth of a second. Moreover, the Z film mysteriously doesn't show the same head wounds that the Dallas medical team reported five minutes later, but, inexplicably, shows wounds closer to what the Bethesda observers saw 6 hours later. Of course, this couldn't be part of a plot to alter the body (and imagery of the body)--perish the thought. Rather, the Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis "explains everything." Again, these are only suggestions. Far be it for me to interfere with the free reign of anyone's expertise. So I do invite you to exercise yours, and explain the absence of facial features on Jackie in the Z frame numbered Z-317, whereas her features "returned" by frames 321 and 323 (as well as the other matters mentioned above, if you're so inclined.) DSL 1/12/12; 9:50 PM PST Los Angeles, CA PLEASE NOTE: In the thumbnails below. . Z -323 is on the left; Z-321 is on the right.

Jim, You're missing the point. I accepted the amateurishness of the art work when I read the 1000-word footnote about it in Lifton's Best Evidence, back when you sent me a copy back in 2002. I've never stopped accepting it. In today's jargon, it was a "blink" reaction from Lifton, and film experts who have seen it. I accept it the same as I accept the "blink" reaction of David Healy, and other film experts, when they see the limo gliding down Elm Street like a gondola down a street in Venice. Such reactions from seasoned experts are valuable. (See the "Blink" book for their power -- and limitations.) But the next step is to find scientific proof that something is wrong. And that's where this whole back of the head debate has gone wrong. In the case of the limo floating down Elm, we have other "wrong-looking" evidence, like the front four occupants all lurching forward to a non-existent (in the extant film) braking event. (Let alone all the witnesses who saw something different!) But again, this is not scientific evidence. (Well, not physical scientific evidence -- apologies for my arrogance as a physicist of equating scientific proof with physical proof.) It's physically possible for people to lurch forward at the same time. So I think you keep mistaking my acceptance of the overall "feel of the case" with my higher demands for something to be declared a scientific proof. Now, if the back of the head were blacker than the surrounds of the frame (or possibly the same blackness, and blacker than anything else in the film, but not necessarily in this case), then that would have been physical proof. Just like David Mantik's proof of the impossible density of bone in the autopsy X-rays through optical densitometry -- that is a physical proof, and (unless he is subsequently shown to have made an error) is irrefutable. I'm a little surprised, after all of our collaboration, and your knowledge of the history and philosophy of science, that you still doubt my motives any time that my opinion of the scientific evidence diverges from your own. Maybe I'm more Aspergery than the average bear; maybe it's difficult for some to see me agreeing with Tink or Lamson, even slightly. Apologies if I don't "take sides" as religiously as some. John

Tink, "Crossed in the mail", 21st century style. I've just finished my post saying that I think the back of the head is a distraction. I also know that when you go after an issue with as much gusto as "Moorman in the Street", that you know with high confidence that the extant photographic evidence has nothing to hide. I also know (after 11 or so years of it) that when your tone softens, and you invite me to join in with scholarly research with you, that you know what I'll find, and you're very happy with what that outcome will be. But I do enjoy getting down to the truth, so let me propose a compromise: I'll give you my opinion of the back of the head, on any material you're able to send to my side of the planet (electronically, by mail, carrier pigeon, or otherwise), if any such material has the FULL FRAME at that resolution. That's not really what I want -- I'd prefer ALL parts of ALL frames of ALL copies at as high fidelity and resolution as possible -- but, as I said, this proposal is a compromise. John

[Edited to stop sunglasses-smiley appearing when I wanted to label the second point with ( b ) ] Jim, I'm simply analysing the blackness of the back of the head. I understand the history of Lifton's material, its strengths, and its limitations. I've sat down with Lifton on several occasions, as well as emailing with him since our conference in 2003, and reading Pig on a Leash and watching the videos of his presentation at the conference numerous times. His material is not the absolute theoretically best-quality possible, but it's pretty close to the source, and it's pretty close to the best now available to us, from the descriptions given here. (And he at least has a go at uploading images from it for us to analyse.) The blackness of the back of the head in Lifton's 317 is not anomalous. That's all I'm saying. (1) Agree completely (2) Agree completely (3) Agree completely (4) Pass I can agree with you on (1), (2) and (3) and still do a scientific measurement. Indeed, I reckon many would agree with you on (1) and (2), and maybe even (3), even if they react violently to any suggestion that the sacred cow Z film has been fiddled with. (I think the 1-2-3-4-knockout sequence fallacy probably has a name in philosophy, which you'd tell me if I were in your position and you were in mine, but I don't know enough about philosophy to name it myself.) But let's back up a little here. Are we losing sight of the forest for the trees here? To believe that the back of the head looks like it's been blacked out leads to one of two conclusions: (a) That the Z film is genuine, but someone painted over the back of the head. ( B ) That the Z film has been fabricated out of other footage, and the back of the head was blacked out in that edited-together material. (a) is easily testable: go to the National Archives and see if there's black paint on the camera-original. I'm sure that someone's looked at it, and it's not covered in black paint. But neither you nor I believe (a) anyway. So what about ( B )? Well, why on Earth would someone go to the trouble of fabricating a fake film, and put in images of JFK's head that with a patch so black and so sharp that they were clearly not physically consistent with being taken through the Z camera? (OK, I'll concede that David Mantik showed that that is the case with the X-rays, but I think someone in the 1960s would think it much less likely that the autopsy X-rays would ever be available to view AND that someone like David Mantik would get access to the originals AND that he'd use an optical densitometer on them.) The amount of work required to fabricate the Z film far exceeds the inconvenience of making sure that the back of JFK's head is a colour consistent with the rest of the frame. And that's what we see in Lifton's scan: even Jackie's hair has darker bits, and the limo door near the Connallys is even darker. You know my opinion of Doug Horne. His effusive writing about this "Hollywood" connection -- I'm still to see anything concrete from the Hollywood caper -- makes me prefer even Craig Lamson on his worst day. If there's something in this back of the head thing, I'd love to see it. But I jumped onto this thread because of the possibility that these high-resolution early-generation scans might finally see the light of day -- not because I have any hope that it will shed any light (no pun intended) on the back of the head controversy. I'm actually surprised that we've been able to knock out one aspect, thanks to David Lifton. I think this is all pure decoy and misdirection. There's plenty to look at in good-quality high-resolution scans. But they've got everyone looking at the President -- AGAIN. Can't we ever learn that mistakes are far more likely away from the main point of interest? John

Fascinating. This is my opinion: Lifton's scan is almost as close as we can get to the "camera original" film. If I've got the processing pipelines correct, it's one "generation" further from the original than MPI. (If I recall correctly, MPI only optically blew up each frame once, and scanned the results. Lifton's is a copy of the Weitzman copy.) But it was taken from an internegative created decades before MPI's blow-ups, avoiding any degradation of the "camera original" in the interim. In terms of its reproduction of colour and intensity, that's important. The resolution of the Lifton scan isn't great. A scan of one of the blowups would be preferable, from the point of resolution (i.e. the question of "sharp edges"). So let's leave that to one side. With regard to the "blackness" of the back of the head, the resolution is more than sufficient: it's quite a large area that we're examining. It doesn't take long with any imaging program to determine that, in Lifton's scan, the back of JFK's head is not as black as other parts of the scan. Part's of Jackie's hair are darker than any part of the back of JFK's head. And the boundary region around the frame is significantly darker. I've attached a copy of Lifton's scan in which the intensity levels have been stretched out, for the purpose of showing, visually, what I've just described: So, to me, any claims that the back of the head is "pure black" do not appear to be supported. Does that mean that this imagery hasn't been edited? Of course not. Everyone here knows that I believe the Z film to be a complete fabrication. But the "blackness" argument doesn't hold water, in my opinion. Whether there are the "sharp edges" that make those who have viewed some of these materials believe that it looks edited is a separate question, which might be answered if Lifton is able to scan one of his larger blowups. Tink is absolutely correct that earlier-generation copies must always trump later generations (as long as they can be trusted, etc.). (I tend to trust Lifton's materials, although not necessarily his computer skills. [i've sure David won't take offence at that.]) John I've visited the Sixth Floor Museum just once, many years ago, and have not examined their MPI materials. What I do have are my vivid memories of what the original 35 mm LIFE materials (made under contract by Moses Weitzman) looked like in June, 1970 (when they were sent out to Beverly Hills,and I examined them at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life). In addition, there is my personal examination of one of the Weitzman internegatives in the summer of 1990, at a photo lab in New York City, and 35 mm film copies I made at that time. This is described in my essay "Pig on a Leash," and that's what this post is all about. So let me begin. The item to which I had access for several days--and which I examined most carefully--was one of the best of the half dozen extant "Weitzman internegatives." Let's define our terms. The Weitzman 35mm Internegatives were made by Moses Weitzman (circa 1967) directly from--I repeat, directly from--the original 8mm Zapruder film. So each of those negatives is one generation removed from the original 8mm Zapruder film. What I then created were 35 mm copies made on an Oxberry Optical Printer, made directly from an original Weitzman internegative. Then I had those 35 mm frames scanned at 4k/frame. Let me provide some additional detail (all of this is described in "Pig on a Leash" in the Fetzer anthology). In the summer of 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter (who had made the 1988 JFK documentary for NOVA, aired on the 25th anniversary) was still in possession of one of the Weitzman internegatives--the one which he had used as the source of the crystal clear Zapruder imagery which appeared on that program. (All the remainder of the Weitzman internegatives were --and stil are--possessed by Robert Groden, who has hoarded them all these years; and who has denied under oath, before the ARRB, that he possessed this material. That is false). But let's return to the summer of 1990: As described in PIG ON A LEASH, Richter made that particular 35 mm item (known in the trade as an "optical element") available to me. Working with funds provided by three interested parties--I flew to New York and rented the facilities a film lab in New York City. There, using an Oxberry Optical printer (which I learned how to operate myself) I then carefully examined this 35 mm film element. That examination further persuaded me that the Zapruder film was altered. I realize, in making this statement, that it represents my subjective opinion. Nonetheless, it seemed obvious to me that a black patch appeared in frame after frame of the Zapruder film, at the back of the head. To examine this in detail, I not only made 1:1 copies, but a whole series of enlargements, directly from that optical element. In other words, not only did I create 1:1 35 mm optical copies, but, in addition, 35 mm optical copies at a significantly higher level of magnification than the ordinary "1:1". Only some of my 1:1 material has been scanned--and at 4k/image. The process is expensive. As I say, all of this confirmed my own opinion--and yes, this is subjective--that the back of the head was "blacked out" on the Zapruder film. Since its not that easy (for me, anyway) to upload to this site --due to the size limitations--I am attaching a cropped version of frame Z-317, made from one of my 1:1 copies, scanned at 4k/frame. I would call what I have "2nd generation"--because it is a copy of what Weitzman had, and what he possessed would be "1st generation"--i.e., a 35 mm internegative made directly from the original 8mm Zapruder film, then in possession of LIFE. I believe that this item is considerably clearer than the one Wilkinson has, and is lighter (and hence a tad bit clearer) than the one used by John Costella, at his website. Click on this link and compare: http://www.assassina.../zfilm/z317.jpg Please do notice that Jackie's entire face has no image. This was first pointed out by Jack White years ago, and he has advanced the hypothesis that lots of frame-by-frame artwork was done, and that, for whatever reason, the details of Jackie's face had not been completed; hence, this peculiar image of a face, but no details. I don't know what the explanation is, but it sure does look odd to me. To recap: I believe the Zapruder film has been edited for any number of reasons; and the blacked out "back of the head"in frame after frame is just one of them. I would also like a satisfactory explanation for why Jackie Kennedy has no facial detail in Zapruder frame 317--and that's the way it actually appears on the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film. DSL 1/12/12; 6:15 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

I just want to see all these damn copies. In the flesh. With plenty of equipment on hand to analyze and/or digitize it. Short of that, everyone's just running around in circles like headless chooks.

The procedure is not hypothetical. You proposed its use here. If its validity has been shown on numerous occasions, point us to those proofs. Absent that, researchers may safely assume that it is junk science. Whether the "Hollywood Seven" gives you something to apply the procedure to is hypothetical. If they do, your Disney 3D-View-Masters of it will be as useless as those of the 313 head spray effect.

If you don't have any knowledge of its validity, nor enough interest in it to learn, then why recommend it at all? I think the community expects more from you than that. If you're no longer a researcher, but merely a commentator, then let's get that on the record so that we can ignore your commentaries in the future. John Tink, what do you mean by "3D"? You mean of the "camera original" film itself? Or are you referring to a "fake stereo" using two different frames? (Just trying to figure out which you are referring to.) John

Tink, I've got no problem with comparing adjacent frames (and I have no allegiance to the "Hollywood Seven"), but if you're talking about using adjacent frames as a stereo pair (e.g. frame 316 to the right eye, frame 317 to the left eye) then this method is completely useless -- worse, it's absolutely misleading and meaningless. The only reason it appears to do something useful is because the limo is moving from left to right. Using two different frames puts the limo (as a whole) in front of two different background positions, which approximates the effect of looking at the limo from each of your two eyes. By showing the earlier frame to your right eye, and the later frame to your left eye, you get a "fake 3D" effect because the limo appears to lift out from the background. One way to understand this: hold your arm out, finger up (yes, you can flip me the bird if you like), and look at it through your right eye, then your left eye. If you concentrate on the background of wherever you are, you'll see that your finger appears to move to the right. Of course, your finger isn't moving at all: it just appears to, because you've broken a single stereo view of it into a time sequence of two individual monocular views of it. (And reversing the order -- doing your left eye then your right -- will make your finger appear to move from right to left.) Making a stereo pair of adjacent Z frames does the converse of this -- it takes a time sequence of two absolutely monocular views of a moving object, and fuses them together to give the illusion of a single stereo view. But, just as your finger wasn't moving in the first example, so too isn't the second example really 3D -- it's just the illusion of 3D. Another way of recognizing this is to look at not the limo, but the bystanders. If you try this trick (adjacent Z frames into a fake stereo pair) with Mary and Jean, then you'll find it doesn't work at all: even though they are almost as far in front of the background (peristyle etc.) as the limo, they won't give you the same fake-3D effect. Why? Because they're not moving to the right like the limo is. This tells you that what you're looking at isn't true 3D -- if it were, it would work on Mary and Jean and everything else just as well as it does for the limo. It's just an illusion of 3D. Likewise, if you apply this technique to the limousine and its occupants, then you get a really misleading result. The limo seems to float out in front of the background, because of the 3D illusion described above. That tricks your brain into believing that you're truly looking at something with true stereo vision. You then add on top of this the motion of the occupants (or parts of them) relative to the limousine, and you get another layer of fake 3D. If something inside the limo were moving to the left, relative to the limo, then it would appear to be behind the limo. (For example: if something were moving to the left at the same rate that the limo is moving to the right -- i.e., would be stationary above the pavement of Elm Street if viewed from a satellite camera from above -- then it would appear to be part of the background, not inside the limo at all.) Likewise, something moving to the right relative to the limo (i.e. moving faster relative to the pavement of Elm Street than the limo) would appear to be closer to you than the limo. This is not to say that you couldn't get really interesting (in a psychedelic sense -- you'll have to help me here; you and Jim were around for the '60s; I was only being born) effects by looking at adjacent frames of the Z head shot through a Disney 3D-View-Master. I believe some "researchers" have put serious effort into this meaningless pastime. But the results have nothing to do with three-dimensional reality. At best, this technique might be useful for detecting motion (in the same way that astronomers used to flip between two different photos of the night sky to look for comets, planets, etc.). But in the case we have here -- a film in which the motion of objects (i.e. the President, and parts of his head) is as plain as day -- all it gives you is a 3D Rorschach Test. (I'm stating all this independently of our differing opinions on some topics -- like Z alteration -- even though we agree on others -- like the extant Moorman's camera position. I'm hoping we can get agreement on this point, similarly independent of its consequences re the Z film.) John Tink, what do you mean by "3D"? You mean of the "camera original" film itself? Or are you referring to a "fake stereo" using two different frames? (Just trying to figure out which you are referring to.) John

Sorry, David, when I said "four decades" I should have said 4.6+ decades ... I don't know if there's anything new over what David saw back then, and described in detail at the Zapruder Film Symposium in 2003 (I put the YouTubes of them on my account after the late Rich DellaRosa's account disappeared) and in his fantastic essay "Pig on a Leash" in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003). However ... I'd like to re-raise something that I mentioned back then (in 2003), first noted by David Mantik back in about 1997, that doesn't per se deal with the President's wounds, but does bear on the interesting question of what might have been retouched on what film stock at what time. The issue is the "object in the grass" seen around the time of the head shot (quite possibly the backing of a Polaroid, but its exact nature is irrelevant -- it's just some piece of trash sitting in the grass). Let's call it the "piece of trash lying on the grass". Specifically, what happened to that piece of trash in Frame 323. Now, my memory isn't great at the best of times, but I think that this is how it traces out: LIFE issue of Nov 29, 1963 (printed on Sunday Nov 24, distributed by Tuesday Nov 26): piece of trash is missing in three of those muddy black and white frames, including frame 323 (with a "puddle" visible in 323, which is a larger reproduction than the other two) One of the various versions of LIFE (the version with Z323 rather than Z313), September 1964 (Warren Report edition): now in color, the piece of trash is in 323 MPI digitizations of "camera original" film, late 1990s: the piece of trash is all frames, but there is a remnant of the "puddle" seen in the original LIFE issue in frame 323 Stewart Galanor, 1997 or 1998: requests a set of color slides from the National Archives, and reproduces them in an appendix of his book Cover-Up: the piece of trash is present in all frames except Frame 323. Galanor insists to me (2003) that that was how he obtained the slides from the National Archives, and he did not retouch them in any way. As I said, it's a piece of trash, not the President's head, but if you think about it for a while, and try to come up with a plausible scenario, it's absolutely baffling. I can understand someone at LIFE retouching copies of the film (the 4 x 5's, say) on that first weekend, to remove a "blemish" from the background. (It doesn't really make a lot of sense, given how bad the prints are, but let's go with this.) And I can understand that Galanor might have been given slides that were made from these copies by the National Archives. But then why did two of Galanor's slides show the piece of trash, and only one (323) have it retouched out? And why was it retouched out in color (see Galanor's book), when that first issue of LIFE had only black and white images? And why was its subsequent publication in LIFE in September 1964, in color, not retouched out? What did they use as the basis of this publication? And why does the "camera original" have the remnants of the "puddle" of the original (pre-Nov 24 1963) retouching of frame 323 on it? I'd love to know what everyone's copies of frame 323 have on them. John Jim, Please note the following sequence: (1) I first saw the "blacked out rear of the head" --circa, 1965, 1966--as they appeared in the black and white photographs of LIFE published in the 11/29/63 issue; and then in the color photographs when published in the LIFE Memorial Edition (approx 12/7/63). Of course, since these images were published in a magazine, there was always the possibility that the "blacked out area" was the result of Life's art work, and done for reasons of taste. <snip>