John Costella

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

been my mantra for years Dr. John. Great to seeya, mate! Hope you and your family had a great Christmas. David You too, mate. Takes a sniff of those original scans to get me out of the woodwork ... John

Hi Dunc, Not sure of your source there, but this is what I have from the DVD, blown up. It looks quite different to your version. (I'm glad to see that everyone here agrees that we'd all be better off with access to the original scans!) John

Hi Patrick, Interesting post. Not inconsistent with what many have been saying for a long time (four decades?), but your source material has piqued my interest. My "edit" was based solely on the images contained on the MPI DVD, and suffers from the very low quality of that source. The "zoomed" sequences on the DVD give good resolution, but only for the region of each frame around JFK, and only for a subset of all the frames. Hence my overall "edit" set is based on the set of images showing the full frame including the sprocket holes. (Plus the few that they managed to lose, plus the ones "damaged by LIFE", both categories reconstructed from old Groden VHS videos, digitised to MPEG ... yuk!) Those MPI images were at best DVD quality to start with, and MPI screwed them around so much (see my final Appendix in the book The Great Zapruder Film Hoax) that they aren't even that. They're terrible. I accidentally came across someone with the digital scans you mention when I was first looking for Zapruder frames back in 2001, but he clammed up when he realised I didn't have "official" status (i.e. I wasn't in the tent). I (naively) approached Gary Mack about it, who didn't seem to want to help me get hold of them. (Surprise, surprise! As I said, I was new to this back then.) I haven't revealed the gentleman's name over the years, but haven't forgotten the existence of those scans in his safe, either. Patrick, I'd love to redo my "edit" with the original scans. If your Director friend will send them to me, I'll see what I can do. (Terabytes aren't as scary today as they were in 2001, and if you're right that one frame is 79 MB, then we're only talking around 40 GB anyway. A dozen DVD-Rs should do it.) I guess what I'm saying is that you're extremely lucky to have had access to material that few have been given the chance to work with. Let's hope that the public will finally be given their "reference digitisation" that U.S. taxpayers paid $16 million for ... John

@John Navin: Many people have suggested this (creating a film that is closer to the real event) to me over the years. On the surface it seems like a reasonable idea, but to me there are two fundamental problems: The amount of effort required to do even a reasonably decent job would be immense -- certainly much more than I am able to contribute. Whatever the intentions, it would solidify an alternative view of the assassination that itself would only be an approximation, an educated guess, to what really happened. But even given that, I would welcome anyone with the required talents and spare time to give it a go. However, roll back to an earlier time when video wasn't our primary source of information. (I've even been amazed to see that the most common thing that my sons type into Google is 'YouTube' -- they'll look for a YouTube video explaining something over a text-based web page or Wikipedia entry any day.) Imagine that we had no video or photographic evidence of the crime at all. Imagine putting all of the eyewitness testimony together into a chronological composite, and then reading it through like an old-fashioned book, allowing your imagination to paint the mind's-eye picture for you. That's something I did do -- you can find it at Eyewitness Compilation. What I find most amazing is that when you remove (as far as possible) the extant film and photographic evidence from your mind, and just listen to what the eyewitnesses said, you come to a view of the assassination that is infinitely closer to what is described by viewers of the "other" films. I'll take it one step further. If you have the chance to visit Dealey Plaza, like I was fortunate enough to do in 2003, then stand there by the road (say, near the Mary Moorman spot) early in the morning on a non-descript weekday when there is no traffic and scarcely a person in the Plaza -- and superimpose your mind's eye "video" of the assassination onto the real Elm Street. When I did that with the Zapruder/Nix/Muchmore films as a guide, it felt like a cartoon. Everything glided down Elm Street like water down an aqueduct; it was over before I -- if I had been there in 1963 -- would have even known that anything had even happened. Then, after a stroll around the Elm/Main grass area to clear that away, I went back and did it again with my mind's eye video of what most likely happened. Watching the limo lurch to a stop. Watching the SS agents swarm out. Watch the horror of the blood and gore that has been sanitized out of the extant footage. Watching the motorcycles circle around and go in every direction. Watching the limo jump out of the street and speed away. You go down there and experience that, and you'll understand why I nearly lost it when talking about my Dealey Plaza panorama at the Duluth Conference two days later. Before that trip, critics would tell me that I couldn't really speak with any conviction about Dealey Plaza until I'd actually been there in the flesh. They were right. Now I know. John

Tink, Re the 312-313 movement of JFK's head, what you write sounds right. (Let's ignore our difference of opinion as to whether the Z film means anything.) There are three ways to deal with the blur. One is to take account of it in your calculations. I think ITEK did that way back when. I did when I measured it myself. And David Wimp no doubt did too. The second way is to try to "deblur" 313. I've got an animated GIF that shows the result of that (overlaid on 312) at http://assassination...ro/headmove.gif I can't remember what the measurement came out at (and it depends where you are measuring I guess), but an inch sounds right. (Anyone can look at the animation and come to their own conclusion.) The third way of doing it, that doesn't rely on one particular implementation of deblurring (because deblurring is not unique, no matter how cleverly you try to do it) is to instead blur 312, and then overlay the two. I don't have an image of that at hand, but I do know that it gave the same result as measuring off the animation above (or off the original that that animation was created from, I should say). If one took the Z film to be genuine, I don't think the forward movement could be ignored -- it's not a backwards movement, for example -- but that's just my gut feeling. John

Interesting point. You also have to remember that we have no idea where the final head shot occurred -- there is good evidence that it was further down near the steps, rather than where the Zapruder/Nix/Muchmore fiction puts it, which knocks out some of the historical objections to the storm drain theory, as far as I understand them.

Most fascinating discussion I've seen for a long time. I'd be interested to talk in person to the Wilkinsons at some time. (I'm only in LA for a few hours tomorrow, unfortunately.) I'm perplexed by who's on whose side in all of this. It hasn't been this interesting since I was on Tink's side on the Moorman in the Street controversy! (I'm still trying to figure out if I'm on his side on the Wilkinson issue ...) John

Sorry mate -- my misunderstanding. I think you and I have discussed this one before. It's the thing that floats up the back of this woman (see this image). Cheers John

Jack, you misunderstand. I've looked at it for nearly five years (since I put these together in 2006) and have never come up with an explanation. John

OK, here's a fun question for you all: What's going up the back of the woman in the short dark grey skirt about four to the right of the lamp post before frame 100 in the following? John (in Silicon Valley this fine evening)

No worries David. Yes, I've been adamant from the time I started processing the bystanders in 2002 or so and Jack White noted the "frozen" bystanders that it is definitely not a static image, just that many of them don't react or move their bodies much when the President passes. It's almost like the pilot film bystanders were just pasted in and their hands animated. (I.e. it's not physical proof of anything, only circumstantial) The light from the edge printer will be superposed with that of the exposures, so there's no reason why they can't both be shown as you describe. John

Hi David, Not much time to answer all your questions right now, but in brief: the stabilised bystanders can be seen on one of the clips on my website. They move slightly but their bodies don't move as the President passes -- unlike the photos we have. There's animation going on but it's very minimal. The blue (2002) frames had a mask overlaid. I removed it for the 2006 version ("black border"). John

No worries mate. Makes it easier when I'm only a few hours' time zone difference from you, instead of the wrong side of the planet. John

Hi David, As I put together those "ghost panel" images, I have the answer for you. (From New York, of all places!) The MPI images that were my source material did not extend far beyond the top and bottom of each frame. Consequently, there are parts of the sprocket holes not actually shown. My programs automagically "pasted" the frames back together into a continuous film as best as they could. The result is a sequence of rectangles with horizontal gaps between them. After "cookie-cutting" out around the "ghost panel" areas, the black gaps through the sprocket holes were visually distracting, so I got my program to fill in the interior part that is generally guaranteed to be within the hole (i.e. I didn't want to destroy any hole edge pixels, so avoided the edges). Hope that helps clear up the confusion. John

Yeah and I remember you yelling at me over the phone while I was driving home from my teaching job in 2002 -- it did take a while to sort out the genuine from the bogus ... :)

Thanks Monk. If I say that it only reduces our loss infinitesimally, I think you'll understand my meaning. Rich wanted it to be known that the repository of some of his key memories of the "other" films now lies in my head. He withheld some key information from his public postings. He shared it with me on January 1, 2010. His stated reason was to effectively pass on the baton, so that he could be freed from the harassment of it. Perhaps he also had an inkling that he was to leave us soon. I have also safeguarded this information, in case I am hit by a Melbourne tram, or disappear on my visit to the U.S. next week. Until then, I'm watching and waiting. Cheers mate, and a drink to your memory, Rich. John

Here it is. It is a review of Chapter 14 only; that is the only chapter which I felt qualified to comment on. John costella_horne.pdf

It will be posted on Jim Fetzer's ASSASSINATION SCIENCE journal, edited by Costella. It is not expected to be an entirely positive review, since Horne failed to consider the IMAGE CONTENT of the Z film. Jack Jack, I wouldn't presume to post it on Assassination Research without independent review -- it would not be appropriate for me to edit my own review! As you note, it is not positive. I will be posting it shortly. John

Bill, The numbers refer to the Paul Mandel article in the Memorial Edition of LIFE (a week and a half after the assassination), which is one of the most curious pieces of evidence that we have. Horne makes the argument (and this is one thing that I do agree with him on) that researchers have been mightily confused by assuming that these "as in LIFE" notes are somehow attached to the NPIC event(s) of the first weekend. In my opinion, if they represent anything genuine at all, they represent someone looking at the extant Zapruder film some time after the Memorial Edition of life, trying to figure out how the hell anyone came to those results. (Of course, they make no sense at all because they refer to a different film -- the extant film has nothing at all at those frame numbers that could possibly lead to Mandel's description.) John

Thanks, mate. I've listened to it one and a half times without your transcript; the next time will be with the transcript in front of me. Many thanks for your extensive efforts. John

It will still be days or weeks before I post my opinion of Chapter 14 of Doug Horne's volumes. In the interim ... I had trouble finding the audio of this interview online -- which is the most important interview of the ARRB (for someone interested in the Z film, anyway) -- so it's now at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk John

I just wanted to comment here that some of the questions asked here may be clarified by the videos of the 2003 Duluth Symposium, which Rich DellaRosa kindly uploaded to YouTube recently. There are links to them on one of my web pages: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk Having watched most of them when Rich posted them (I had not seen them before), two points stuck out regarding this thread: 1. David Lifton appears to first use the real term "Hawkeyeworks" in Duluth 2003, saying that he previously referred to it as "Eagle Eye Works" so that he wouldn't get busted for revealing classified information. If it was the latter term that he used at Lancer 1998, then that solves that mystery. 2. During Lifton's presentation, I butted in with a lengthy disagreement about his "full flush left" argument. I remain unconvinced. Just thought I would mention this, as it is one rare case where we can "go to the videotape". John

I have not had time to delve into Doug Horne's volumes in detail (I only received Volume IV a few days ago), but I have already noted a number of disappointing erroneous claims regarding the Stemmons sign. In terms of this "blue scarf" issue -- which Doug summarises succinctly on a web page referenced above -- my opinion is that Craig Lamson is absolutely correct. I agree with Jim that these errors should not invalidate all of Doug's work, particularly those non-technical aspects of his investigations, but it certainly gives his critics plenty of "free hits". I'm otherwise occupied with more pressing issues, but I'll return to Horne's work as time permits. Please, all, don't try to drag me into a lengthy flame war at this time. John

If you'd asked me a year ago, I would've agreed with that sentiment. I hope to be alive in 2050, and my children will be a little older than I am now by then. But if the evidence is fraudulent, the costs to my children of bogus taxes and restrictions paint a fare bleaker future. Right now I'm much more concerned about an exponentially increasing world population exhausting all the planet's resources than I am in us returning carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Where's the world crisis summit on that? John