David G. Healy

Ahhhh, thanks for clarifying, Jack.

Soooo ... it's just a case of, ...

Jamieson was pressured,

this I know,

'cause Horne IV

tells me so ... etc.

So that's all you've got.

Same on the side A side B of the film, same on Zavada, same on all the claims about what

you call the Hollywood 7 and the black patch on 317. Why the way you and Fetzer were making claims and talking it up, and being that, as you

guys noted, you are "insiders" and all, one would have thought you actually had something yourselves.

So, thanks for clearing that up.

Barb :-)

little frightening when you step outside the confines of the Warren Commission Report and that lone nut cocoon called .johnville isn't it Barb?

Oh yeah, I just project trembling in my boots fear, now don't I!? ROTFL And how are you .... now that it's come out that one Horne calls your "research associate" filmed and demonstrated the full flush left a few YEARS ago .... and yet you never said a word about that thru all the gnashing of teeth (including your own) on that subject here? Can it really be that your "research associate" did this without you ever knowing or hearing about it? How did that work, exactly? Do tell.

like I said Barb...

little frightening when you step outside the confines of the Warren Commission Report and that lone nut cocoon called .johnville isn't it?

we've been hip to that xxxxx game for years now..... gnashing of teeth, at our age Bab's that's what false teeth are for.... now, the above quote if you please or has the cat got your tongue? and please, don't sic Jer Logan or Lampoon Lamson on me, can't stand much more lone nut-xxxxx humor today... ROTFLMFAO

You ever shoot a roll of 8mm film Barb?

Ahhhh, thanks for clarifying, Jack.

Soooo ... it's just a case of, ...

Jamieson was pressured,

this I know,

'cause Horne IV

tells me so ... etc.

So that's all you've got.

Same on the side A side B of the film, same on Zavada, same on all the claims about what

you call the Hollywood 7 and the black patch on 317. Why the way you and Fetzer were making claims and talking it up, and being that, as you

guys noted, you are "insiders" and all, one would have thought you actually had something yourselves.

So, thanks for clearing that up.

Barb :-)

little frightening when you step outside the confines of the Warren Commission Report and that lone nut cocoon called .johnville isn't it Barb?

Oh yeah, I just project trembling in my boots fear, now don't I!? ROTFL And how are you .... now that it's come out that one Horne calls your "research associate" filmed and demonstrated the full flush left a few YEARS ago .... and yet you never said a word about that thru all the gnashing of teeth (including your own) on that subject here? Can it really be that your "research associate" did this without you ever knowing or hearing about it? How did that work, exactly? Do tell.

like I said Barb...

little frightening when you step outside the confines of the Warren Commission Report and that lone nut cocoon called .johnville isn't it Barb?

we've been hip to the xxxxx game for years now..... gnashing of teeth, at our age Bab's that's what false teeth are for.... now, the above quote if you please or has the cat got your tongue?and please don't sic Jer Logan or Lampoon Lamson on me, can't stand much more lone nut-xxxxx humor today... ROTFLMFAO

You ever shoot a roll of 8mm film Barb?

Think anything you want. I would have never coined the "complimentary term" MR. LIGHT.

Lamson posted that is what his customers called him. I used it ONLY because he had called

himself that. I would NEVER have complimented him in a serious way. I was using the term

ONLY because he called himself that.

Jack

Right...and you expect us to believe that?

It was NEVER a compliment from you Jack, it was an attempt to SLAM me. The truth is here in the forum archives. PROVE your claim, or accept that you are once again not telling the truth.

As it stands the facts show you made mention of the term Mr. Light, on this forum, LONG BEFORE I even mentioned it. And as Evan was so kind ot post, my first explanation of the term in 06 matches to a tee the one I just gave.

So, show us all where I said what you said I did

BTW, My wife is not amused with your "corruption" of history. She was not pleased you included her in the first place and shes a bit peeved you can't be honest about it now.

I decided to expand my search, and used Google to search for "Mr Light" (please note - capitalisation and punctuation is not recognised). That gave a huge number of returns, including a number of companies that use the name. I then filtered the search by using "Mr Light" AND "Lamson" (since if Craig claimed in a post that he was called that by customers, his surname would have also been included in the post).

That drastically reduced the returns and the only examples I could find were of Jack calling Craig "Mr Light" or Craig saying that Jack had called him "Mr Light".

There were NO examples of Craig calling himself "Mr Light".

Come on Jack - admit you were wrong. It's not that a significant point... in fact, it will demonstrate that you DO admit error when proven wrong. Three little words Jack, that's all you have to say to clear your name: "I was wrong".

methinks this moderator (and the Redd Foxx's favorite bud-the Lenster) are whining way too much... but don't let this person interrupt your JFK assassination related photo-film researcher bashing.... carry on!

Read Horne IV. It is all there. I am not going to transcribe it all by hand just to tell to

a few too cheap to buy the book.

Jack

Ahhhh, thanks for clarifying, Jack.

Soooo ... it's just a case of, ...

Jamieson was pressured,

this I know,

'cause Horne IV

tells me so ... etc.

So that's all you've got.

Same on the side A side B of the film, same on Zavada, same on all the claims about what

you call the Hollywood 7 and the black patch on 317. Why the way you and Fetzer were making claims and talking it up, and being that, as you

guys noted, you are "insiders" and all, one would have thought you actually had something yourselves.

So, thanks for clearing that up.

Barb :-)

little frightening when you step outside the confines of the Warren Commission Report and that lone nut cocoon called .johnville isn't it Barb?

Read Horne IV, Chapter 15. It covers everything.

I had questions about where the magnetic recording strip was located on 8mm. We worked that out

in private emails.

Have you read Horne IV yet? Do your homework.

Jack

I've read sections. And I simply don't deal in SPECULATION.

Craig -- perhaps you're willing to go on the record stating you've indeed inspected the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film currently housed at NARA and declared it the unblemished original. Of course you can provide NARA staff names, times, dates and place for such Zapruder Film authentication that you've performed, yes? If not, then for the past 6 years you've dealt nothing but speculation to this forum (day in -- day out) and every other forum you participate regarding the 11/22/63 Zapruder assassination film.

Welcome Francois! I hope you enjoy yourself here and can add to our knowledge base.

he won't ad to the knowledge base....

I'll be studying it after you're gone Healy.

9 out of 10 of your contributions on this forum are pathetic and pitiful. I can only assume your obsession with trolls is because you perhaps look like one? Do me a favour? Change your picture. It does nothing for what little credibility you have left as a photography "expert" and it makes me feel sick.

And the day I ever do as you tell me to do is the day I'll go and ask for professional mental health treatment.

Don't ever try to tell me what to do again. Okay?

your unworthy of all this attention your receiving, Lee. Sure you haven't tried to float your LHO script to some unsuspecting theatrical organization?

Carry on son, we know where you stand or lie?

Don't you have the thick skin you want others to have David?

son, when you publish get back to me... till then, continue taking pages out of the David Von Pein playbook. P.S. he can't write either....

I'll be studying it after you're gone Healy.

9 out of 10 of your contributions on this forum are pathetic and pitiful. I can only assume your obsession with trolls is because you perhaps look like one? Do me a favour? Change your picture. It does nothing for what little credibility you have left as a photography "expert" and it makes me feel sick.

And the day I ever do as you tell me to do is the day I'll go and ask for professional mental health treatment.

Don't ever try to tell me what to do again. Okay?

your unworthy of all this attention your receiving, Lee. Sure you haven't tried to float your LHO script to some unsuspecting theatrical organization?

Carry on son, we know where you stand or lie?

Last night I had a sudden Aha! moment.

As we know the so-called Zapruder film was 25' 8mm, really 16mm with a Side A and a Side B, which were

then slit apart. A & B were usually joined back together for a continuous 50' of film.

The Zfilm was different. It was left as two 25' separate films.

A...the Zapruder grandchildren playing

B...the president getting done in on Elm

You never hear much about the A side of the film, except that IT EXISTED. I have never seen it at all.

You know all about the B side of the film, except what happened to the rest of the "blank" film after the

assassination part? Did someone just snip it off and discard it?

But back to the A side of the film...the Z grandchildren. I got to thinking about them. Why were they there?

Just what WAS the A side of the film?

THEN IT SUDDENLY DAWNED ON ME. The A side of the film was there TO AUTHENTICATE ABE TAKING THE

FILM. If someone else actually took the film, some could claim that he did not take the film. So how to

authenticate the film?

1. Have him show up at Channel 8 claiming he took the film, and

2. HAVE THE "A SIDE" OF THE FILM SHOW HIS GRANDCHILDREN.

I think the "A side" should be examined.

Jack

Jack,

Sorry, but that's not much of an "aha! moment.

While the A side has been removed from the original film in the Arcives, the A side is present in both Secret Service First Day copies of the film in the Archives. Images of it have appeared in Esquire and possibly Argosy in the 1970s, and in Trask's book on the Zapruder film.

Do you have Trask's book on the Z film?

Todd

deliver us an un-slit, b&w version of the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film.... then we can talk, till then... who cares about TRASK'S book? Stay focused, Todd! Have you read TGZFH?

Who care's about Trask's book? Well, YOU should, as it contains an image from an unslit BW copy of the original film.

Do you have Trask's book?

your assigned today, eh? well, now listen son.... for those simple and feint-hearted

deliver us an un-slit, b&w version of the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film

and again, who cares about Trask or Wrone?

Am I "assigned today"? You're absurd.

And you didn't answer my question.

Do you have Trask's book?

when one posts exclusively from WENDY'S resturants, what are we to think, Todd? THINK film son, as in the ***entire*** unslit film strip.... not frame. So, again, who cares about a Trask or a Wrone book concerning the subject matter? Just another opinion!

Agreed, I'm also most interested in the timing of Lee's entry to this Forum...coincidence, or just in time to cast a very hidden doubt on those who think the Z-film and many others [motion and still] were altered by the very same persons [entities] that murdered our President and our Polity. Just wondering out loud.....

Peter, I don’t understand the point you are making. Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Jack is part of some sort of conspiracy? Why cannot people like Lee be able to disagree with Jack?

Conversely why cannot people like Jack be able to disagree with Lee...or anyone else?

You can disagree with me whenever you want Jack. I haven't got any issue with you personally.

I will argue against some of your "beliefs" and things you consider "facts" in the Kennedy Assassination and disagree with them in the manner I see fit at that moment in time.

I think some of the messages addressed to you over the last day or two have gone over the line somewhat but I don't think you do yourself any favours sometimes.

The above message from John was actually written in reply to Mr/Mrs/Ms Lemkin's detestable comments about me and motives for joining this board.

Hope you're well

Lee

ah, you're being patronizing there Lee. Argue beliefs? How the hell do you do that?

Listen, some here have been studying this case since before you were born. Most here are looking for answers, NOT childish, distracting debate. That's for the junior varsity and there's particularly plenty of those lone nut trolls here... and they ALL love to argue... (there's a reason this forum does as well as it does and it's called the Zapruder film)

Do us a favor layout some of your Lee Harvey Oswald material. Anything new and exciting? Let's see what you have? And please, develop a thicker skin, especially if you plan on sticking around...

Last night I had a sudden Aha! moment.

As we know the so-called Zapruder film was 25' 8mm, really 16mm with a Side A and a Side B, which were

then slit apart. A & B were usually joined back together for a continuous 50' of film.

The Zfilm was different. It was left as two 25' separate films.

A...the Zapruder grandchildren playing

B...the president getting done in on Elm

You never hear much about the A side of the film, except that IT EXISTED. I have never seen it at all.

You know all about the B side of the film, except what happened to the rest of the "blank" film after the

assassination part? Did someone just snip it off and discard it?

But back to the A side of the film...the Z grandchildren. I got to thinking about them. Why were they there?

Just what WAS the A side of the film?

THEN IT SUDDENLY DAWNED ON ME. The A side of the film was there TO AUTHENTICATE ABE TAKING THE

FILM. If someone else actually took the film, some could claim that he did not take the film. So how to

authenticate the film?

1. Have him show up at Channel 8 claiming he took the film, and

2. HAVE THE "A SIDE" OF THE FILM SHOW HIS GRANDCHILDREN.

I think the "A side" should be examined.

Jack

Jack,

Sorry, but that's not much of an "aha! moment.

While the A side has been removed from the original film in the Arcives, the A side is present in both Secret Service First Day copies of the film in the Archives. Images of it have appeared in Esquire and possibly Argosy in the 1970s, and in Trask's book on the Zapruder film.

Do you have Trask's book on the Z film?

Todd

deliver us an un-slit, b&w version of the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film.... then we can talk, till then... who cares about TRASK'S book? Stay focused, Todd! Have you read TGZFH?

Who care's about Trask's book? Well, YOU should, as it contains an image from an unslit BW copy of the original film.

Do you have Trask's book?

Now THAT really is an AHA moment. You apparently are unfamiliar with the SIGNIFICANCE of what you said. You

are unfamiliar with HORNE IV, which tells of the significance of the UNSLIT BW COPY. Read Horne IV and get

back to us!

Jack

I guess Todd is now OFF-duty, Jack.

Last night I had a sudden Aha! moment.

As we know the so-called Zapruder film was 25' 8mm, really 16mm with a Side A and a Side B, which were

then slit apart. A & B were usually joined back together for a continuous 50' of film.

The Zfilm was different. It was left as two 25' separate films.

A...the Zapruder grandchildren playing

B...the president getting done in on Elm

You never hear much about the A side of the film, except that IT EXISTED. I have never seen it at all.

You know all about the B side of the film, except what happened to the rest of the "blank" film after the

assassination part? Did someone just snip it off and discard it?

But back to the A side of the film...the Z grandchildren. I got to thinking about them. Why were they there?

Just what WAS the A side of the film?

THEN IT SUDDENLY DAWNED ON ME. The A side of the film was there TO AUTHENTICATE ABE TAKING THE

FILM. If someone else actually took the film, some could claim that he did not take the film. So how to

authenticate the film?

1. Have him show up at Channel 8 claiming he took the film, and

2. HAVE THE "A SIDE" OF THE FILM SHOW HIS GRANDCHILDREN.

I think the "A side" should be examined.

Jack

Jack,

Sorry, but that's not much of an "aha! moment.

While the A side has been removed from the original film in the Arcives, the A side is present in both Secret Service First Day copies of the film in the Archives. Images of it have appeared in Esquire and possibly Argosy in the 1970s, and in Trask's book on the Zapruder film.

Do you have Trask's book on the Z film?

Todd

deliver us an un-slit, b&w version of the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film.... then we can talk, till then... who cares about TRASK'S book? Stay focused, Todd! Have you read TGZFH?

Who care's about Trask's book? Well, YOU should, as it contains an image from an unslit BW copy of the original film.

Do you have Trask's book?

your assigned today, eh? well, now listen son.... for those simple and feint-hearted

deliver us an un-slit, b&w version of the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film

and again, who cares about Trask or Wrone?

Last night I had a sudden Aha! moment.

As we know the so-called Zapruder film was 25' 8mm, really 16mm with a Side A and a Side B, which were

then slit apart. A & B were usually joined back together for a continuous 50' of film.

The Zfilm was different. It was left as two 25' separate films.

A...the Zapruder grandchildren playing

B...the president getting done in on Elm

You never hear much about the A side of the film, except that IT EXISTED. I have never seen it at all.

You know all about the B side of the film, except what happened to the rest of the "blank" film after the

assassination part? Did someone just snip it off and discard it?

But back to the A side of the film...the Z grandchildren. I got to thinking about them. Why were they there?

Just what WAS the A side of the film?

THEN IT SUDDENLY DAWNED ON ME. The A side of the film was there TO AUTHENTICATE ABE TAKING THE

FILM. If someone else actually took the film, some could claim that he did not take the film. So how to

authenticate the film?

1. Have him show up at Channel 8 claiming he took the film, and

2. HAVE THE "A SIDE" OF THE FILM SHOW HIS GRANDCHILDREN.

I think the "A side" should be examined.

Jack

Jack,

Sorry, but that's not much of an "aha! moment.

While the A side has been removed from the original film in the Arcives, the A side is present in both Secret Service First Day copies of the film in the Archives. Images of it have appeared in Esquire and possibly Argosy in the 1970s, and in Trask's book on the Zapruder film.

Do you have Trask's book on the Z film?

Todd

deliver us an un-slit, b&w version of the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film.... then we can talk, till then... who cares about TRASK'S book? Stay focused, Todd! Have you read TGZFH?

The predictable result. The predictable people.

None of them ever spent 24 days in the hospital recovering from stab wounds.

Jack

my goodness, Jack... you pulled most of the trolls under one thread... AMAZING!

Paul.... GREAT thread!

...

“There is no credible evidence for the reek of gunpowder,” crowed panel member Craig Lamson, “and we have lots and lots of films and photographs to prove it. Who are you going to believe anyway, me or some guy who actually saw the assassination? It's a no-brainer."

...

P-R-I-C-E-L-E-S-S

I think that in misrepresenting Doug Horne's true beliefs, James Gordon has exposed himself as a disinformation agent intent on discrediting Doug Horne's work, and that everything else he says should be ignored, and that everything else he has to say is worthless propaganda.

BK

years back James Gordon was Bill Millers aide de-camp re the Moorman 5 debate and timing as to when the Moorman 5 matched up to what Z-film frame.... appears old lone nut comrades seem to REappear when needed (James Gordon is alleged to be a math teacher from Scotland). I take Mr. Gordon with a grain of salt.

Once agian you post opinion and supposition and tell us its's..how do you put it...."actual proof"

Color me unimpressed.

color you this... YOU can not claim the Zapruder film is a true depecition of what happened on Elm Street 11/22/63! To many eyewitness accounts do NOT jive with the film. PERIOD! Simple as that!

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?

Good grief deano, admit it when you are wrong! You are not, 'explaining' anything, you just want to try and spin your way out of your foolish statements. deano wants the world ot believe the term "sharp focus" really means blurry! Unfrickingling believable. Baaah Baaah.

BTW, your "rundown' is worthless, give us MEASUREMENTS..you can do that, can't you?

Craigster, there's so much doubt concerning the DP photographic record, autopsy pics and x-rays at this time.... Anything you, or unsophisticated nutter-trolls do or say these days (defending the unauthenticated), is a complete waste of time. Not to mention, a waste of bandwidth... Quite a disinfo show and dance....

Being ANTI-alteration is a state of mind. Those of that persuasion do NOT WANT to believe. For many year I was one of them.

Seeing that the film is altered is NOT COMPLICATED.

There are many things that happened in Dealey Plaza that NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE said happened. The film does

not show these things. Why should the film be believed instead of the people?

A few SIMPLE thing are sufficient.

1. Zapruder said he filmed the limo turn onto Elm. The film does not show it.

2. People who were there said the limo made a wide turn, so it is not seen since the limo turn is not seen.

3. Connally said he turned to his LEFT when he heard a shot, then to his right. His left turn is not seen.

4. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill both said they STEPPED OFF THE CURB to shoot a Polaroid, but they are seen on the grass.

5. Jean Hill said she stepped into the street and waved and hollered at JFK; this is not seen as she stands motionless.

6. Dozens of people said the limo stopped. No limo stop is seen.

7. Numerous credible witnesses said Officer Chaney rode forward to the lead car. The lead car is seen, but no Chaney.

What is complicated about looking at the film and making these observations? Any child could do it, contrary to what

Lee and Kathy say.

Jack

Jack, Being PRO-ALTERATION is also a state of mind. The alteration argument that the film must have been altered because there are things in the film people don't remember, and things people remember that are not in the film, will NEVER hold water with historians, legal scholars, and the media. Those who've studied human cognition are more than aware we are flawed in our recollections. Horribly flawed.

Here is a link to a much discussed video.

Basketball video

This video was created to demonstrate just how flawed we are as recording devices. This video has been shown thousands of times to rooms full of students, etc. Before the showing, the professor will ask the students to count how many times the basketball is passed in the video, or whether the ball is touched more by the boys or the girls, etc. This gives them something to focus on.

Halfway through the video, however, a man in a gorilla suit walks across the room and stands in the middle of those passing the ball. And that's the whole point of the video. After the showing is over, when asked about the man in the gorilla suit, only a minority of the audience has ANY recollection of the man in the gorilla suit. The professor then replays the video, and the bulk of the audience gasps in amazement at their inability to recollect something as strange as a man in a gorilla suit walking across the room.

When given the choice of believing "people's memories are often incorrect" or believing "the film must have been faked because so many people couldn't be wrong" the vast majority of people are gonna go with the first. And be correct to do so.

Now, that doesn't mean you or anyone else who wants to study the film should stop doing so. There are several issues--including whether or not the back of the head was painted in--that, if clearly demonstrated--could make a substantial impact on the public's attitude towards alteration. But saying the film must have been faked because is doesn't show what we think it should isn't gonna pass the average person's smell test. IMHO.

This is a total non-sequitur used by those in general who want to discredit witness testimony,

and I think the relevance of the experiment is subject to various interpretations.

MURDER IN DEALY PLAZA is not a man in a gorilla suit at a basketball game. In Dealey Plaza

all attention was focused on the President and his activities in the motorcade. Hundreds of

people's eyes were riveted on JFK or Jackie and the limo. Even if a herd of gorillas had been

dancing down Main Street, nobody would have been able to tell you whether the gorillas had

been doing a waltz or polka...BUT EVERYONE COULD TELL YOU ABOUT JACKIE'S PINK HAT

AND WHITE GLOVES. So your gorilla argument falls flat, because nobody cared about gorillas

but everybody cared about JFK and Jackie.

If the limo stopped, they could report that accurately. If the gorillas stopped dancing and

started cartwheeling, most would not notice. So memories would depend on what the witness

interest was, not whether some irrelevance was happening.

Jack

Hi Jack

Hope you've had a good day.

In 1998 I was an eyewitness to the robbery of a jewelers in Derby, England. Two guys wearing balaclavas ran out with shotguns. I was petrified but my eyes stayed on them as they got into a getaway car. To cut a long story short during the trial it came to my attention that although I got the car type correct (a Ford Escort) I got the color wrong. It was red and I thought it was green.

Maybe nonsense and doesn't mean anything to you but it's quite personal and I bear it in mind when I read the Warren Commission testimonies.

Lee

Thanks for the anecdote, but again it is somewhat irrelevant. That was in Derby. This was in Dealey.

Let me ask a theoretical. In your robbery scenario...if the car drove away...THEN STOPPED...then drove away again,

would you have noticed that? Or would you have testified that the car DID NOT STOP?

That would be a relevant observation to Dealey.

In Dealey, many witnesses MIGHT have testified that JFK was in a BLACK limo. It was dark blue.

But 59 of them SAID THE LIMO STOPPED or PAUSED. The Z film shows NO such event.

Jack

The answer to your question is "who knows" Jack? This event, in retrospect is quite hazy, even after only 12 years. I have far older memories, less important, but far more vivid than this one. I think the main reason the car stuck with me was because my Father drove one - so the situation real-time applied what was happening to previous experiences and memory.

I'd like to believe I'd have noticed if the car had started and stopped. I'd like to believe something like this would have been easy to remember but the effects of adrenaline can do strange things to your recollection of events and more importantly on your ability to process time in the correct manner.

Maybe a car "slowing down" can be more easily interpreted by the human brain as stopping. The brain loves definitive absolutes Jack - they're easier to process, make sense of and remember...

Lee

I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Studies by the very experts cited by those claiming people are not consistently wrong also indicate that eyewitnesses to a dramatic event approximate the length of the event as twice as long as its actual time. This means that, for them, time slows down. As a result, a limo slowing down to 4-5 mph might appear to have slowed to a near complete stop.

From patspeer.com, chapter 9:

According to Dr. Elizabeth Loftus in her online paper Juror Understanding of Eyewitness Testimony, “People have a strong tendency to overestimate the duration of a stressful event.” Attempts to measure this tendency show that people will often interpret the duration of a stressful event as being twice as long as its actual time. As most of the witnesses to Kennedy’s assassination were initially unaware that the first loud noise was a shot, for them to say the last two shots were closer together than this first noise and the second shot, is therefore indicative that the last two shots were extremely close together. To clarify, as Dr. Loftus’ research indicates that the time between these last two shots would most logically have been overestimated, the probability is that, as close together as many witnesses placed these shots, they were even closer. And yet this simple piece of information is little understood by the public at large. In a study by Yarmey and Jones quoted online by Dr. Loftus, it was found that 95% of the psychologists and legal experts surveyed understood that witnesses routinely overestimate the lengths of events, while less than 50% of the public shared this understanding.

ahh... shall we release all convicts convicted of the crimes due to eye witness testimony? We know there are jury consultants protecting and advancing their turf (much the same here as with "theories, theory's are like a*****es everyone has one, eh?

So let's see: YOU or anyone else here, including the ghost of Mr. Dunkle Dr. Thompson and the band of 8 can't prove the NARA housed extant Z-film is the original and, alterations cant prove the film is altered. Does this surprise anyone here? If you have something to help resolve authenticating the film, let's have it.

Best I see coming out of these Ed Forum threads lately is: folks are plain shook up by an insiders 5 volume series; and they're shucking and jiving avoiding the obvious....

What were Gary's thoughts regarding the slowing downstopping of the limo? I seemed to have missed his post in this thread....

You and David are SUCH cut ups! HAHA! Moe Weitzman?? The copy he made in 1967 would have done the WC a fat lot of good, now wouldn't it? And I thought the clues were so obvious ... sigh.

LIFE (via Mr. Orth) brings the original film to D.C. to show the WC in February ... that was 1964, not 1967 :-) ... and they then send the film to a New Jersey lab, not to have bad salsa made, but to have 3 sets of first generation slides made. Robert Groden was the technician at that lab in New Jersey, who made those slides ... and made himself a copy of the film, which he then hid in a safe for years, at the same time. So, the poor copy Pamela is complaining about that Groden showed on the Geraldo show was made directly from the original.

I never made any "claims" about Weitzman ... I never mentioned him. How silly that would have been. And pretty silly you both did.

Barb :-)

ever since he was a lab technician at a NJ photo lab ...

Moe Weitzman's lab was in New Jersey? Here all along I thought it was in New York.

David you are correct Moe Weitzman ran EFX Laboratories in New York City nt New jersey as Barb claims

It was at EFX that Moe went from 8mm to 35mm in one step

Groden of course worked for Moe and from him got most of his early Z-film (s)

I loved Liftons POAL chapter in TGZFH, the background of the researchers trying to get any type of copy of the Z-film, Marcus stealing Newcombs copy of the Z-film ( ) such a great history that Lifton was involved in, one of the reasons I look up to Lifton and the early reaserchers so much

Hello Barb,

Nice dance, a bit to obvious, but nice dance anyway, hon....when you get up to Z-film speed, give us a call. Is it too much moisture your neck of the woods?

Thank you, Bill Kelly, for taking the time to post these excerpts from Doug Horne. We very much appreciate it.

It's hardly surprising that fervent believers in the legitimacy of the Zapruder film are unimpressed by Doug Horne's research on the subject. At this point, they have far too much time and energy invested in this one aspect of the assassination to admit they were wrong.

I have always been an agnostic on the question of film alteration. I don't see how anyone with an open mind can't admit that Doug Horne has raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the Zapruder film.

Hi Don,

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to post some more important parts when I am back on line.

I too really don't care if the Zapruder film has been altered or not.

If the Z-film can be shown to be for real, along with the accoustics, both can be entered into evidence as indictative of conspiracy before a grand jury.

If the Z-film can be shown to have been altered on an optical processor at "Hawkeye Works" in Rochester, then we have evidence of tampering and obstruction of justice and we know who did it and can take that to a grand jury as equally persuasive evidence of a crime.

So either way works for me.

BK

I respect your position. But as one of the few Forum members to have tangled with McAdams, Von Pein, Myers, etc, and one of the few to have actually read Bugliosi's book, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that a large percentage of Horne's evidence (and Tink is correct to call it so, in that it is evidence presented by Horne to make HIS case for body alteration, etc) will dissolve in front of the public's eyes if ever held up to sunlight.

Here's another example... In book 1, he builds his case for there having been a large defect on the back of Kennedy's head, multiple brain exams, etc. He builds much of this around the statements of autopsy photographers Stringer and Riebe. He notes, however, on page 231, that BOTH men, when under oath, said they had no reason to distrust the accuracy of the autopsy photographs showing the back of the head to be intact. He then claims on page 232 that "it is entirely possible that each man privately made a conscious decision to perjure himself on this issue." He is thereby impugning the character of the very witnesses upon whom he has built his case. This makes crystal clear IMO that Horne is not building his case around the statements of the ARRB witnesses, but is interpreting the statements of the ARRB witnesses through the prism of Lifton's Best Evidence. It makes little sense, after all, for Stringer to call into question the veracity of the brain photos, if he was so scared of controversy that he'd decided to lie about the back of the head photos.

This open embrace of Lifton's theory, IMO, is exactly what Bugliosi and the folks at HBO have been praying for. (Yeah, yeah, I know Bugliosi is an atheist.)

A prediction: if Horne is "chosen" as the spokesperson for the CT community in the debates and discussions sure to ensue on the 50th anniversary when HBO airs its mini-series, he will have his hat handed to him, and the entire CT community will be discredited as theorists pushing interesting but wild theories holding that most everyone involved in the medical evidence lied.

This is most unfortunate, IMO, as there is clear and easily demonstrated evidence that 1) Specter and Kelley deliberately misled the WC, with Specter suborning perjury in re the back wound location used in the May 24, 1964 re-enactment, 2) Boswell and Humes lied to the press in 1966 and 1967 while under pressure from the Justice Department, and probably on behalf of the Justice Department, 3) Dr. Baden misled the HSCA about the President's head wounds, and was so confused about what he was supposed to say that he testified with his exhibit upside down, and 4) the HSCA trajectory expert not only moved the wound locations to create the illusion the shots were fired from the sniper's nest, he shrank Kennedy's skull to make his trajectories work after the medical panel re-interpreted the location of the bullet's exit from Kennedy's skull.

I just think we should go into battle against the LNers with our best evidence, so to speak, and leave the speculation over which 70 or 80 year old person's memory was most accurate to the forums.

Pat,

Your David Lifton bias is dripping all over the place, kinda sad too.... And why pray-tell battle anyone? That's for the word merchants, the legal beagles, the lawyers!

Simply carve out your area of expertise, present your case, then go home. Simple as that! One of the problems that CT's and LNer's alike suffer from is media-itis. Super EGO.... sound familiar? Worse yet, they think based on their own personal efforts they have the answer(s) to this case. Poppycock! Presently the CT's are doing a great job keeping the case front and center, and THAT effort needs to be applauded. At this time the CT's are winning the PR war.... but, ALL roads lead to Bill Kelly's concept: either a congressional investigation or a grand jury...

I was amazed to find on page 1357 of Volume IV of Horne’s book that he had involved me and copies I had of the Zapruder film in a complicated circumstantial argument that the film had been altered. It all concerns Z frame 317. Horne writes:

“But frame 317 provides the most damning evidence of apparent film alreration... As the old adage goes, “seeing is believing,” and in June of 2009, when Sydney Wilkinson forwarded to a JPEG image of the HD scan of frame 317, I had my own epiphany (See Figures 87 and 88)... What I saw was stunning... The lower half of the back of JFK’s head – hair that was very brown, or perhaps a cross between auburn and light gray in the HD scan – was covered up by a jet black patch with very straight artificial edges that appeared to be artwork to me, like opaque black paint placed on top of the natural image of his hair. It was as if a trapezoid (the black patch) with impossibly straight edges had been wrapped around the back of JFK’s head...” [emphasis in original]

We’ll come back to this description in a moment. But first the reference to me and a favor I extended to David Mantik some years ago. On the same page in a footnote about frame 317, Horne writes:

“David Mantik showed me a scrapbook in August 2009 full of small black-and-white prints of the unauthorized photographs Josiah Thompson took of LIFE magazine’s 4x5 inch color positive transparencies of Zapruder frames in 1966. In Mantik’s scrapbook, there are two missing Z frames, which were not photographed by Thompson (presumably because they were missing from the LIFE collection): 317 and 329. Just how many coincidences are we supposed to believe in when studying the Kennedy assassination?”

“Wait a minute, “ I said to myself. “This is ridiculous”

Some years ago I helped David Mantik by giving him black and white photos (negatives or positives I don’t know) of Zapruder frames he wanted to study. This was back in the days before Mantik came up with one of his Zapruder fakery claims that was quickly refuted by Clint Bradford; it had something to do with “ghost images.” So Horne and Mantik are saying there was some funny business concerning frames 317 and 329... that Thompson didn’t give them to Mantik and that means Thompson didn’t copy them from LIFE’s transparencies and that means that they were missing from LIFE’s collection in November 1966 and that means the Zapruder film was faked! “But that’s ridiculous,” I said to myself, “because I used those very frames to make measurements and published those measurements in Six Seconds. What did Horne and Mantik believe... that I just pulled the measurement for those frames out of thin air?

So I went up in the attic and pulled out the box with the 8" by 10" prints used to measure the movement of JFK’s head. They were all there, frames 300 through 333, all with the original measuring marks on them. Here’s a scan of frame 317:

You would think, before using in Horne’s book the fact that Mantik was missing a couple of frames years after I did him a favor, they would have done me the favor of calling me up and asking me if I had the frames they were missing. Of course not. That might show that their purported “fact” was a non-fact.

While I had the box down from the attic, I started looking through the transparencies I had made that night in November 1966. I had been using a Nikon camera with perhaps (I’m not sure.) a 100 mm. lens and a copying stand. LIFE’s 4" by 5" transparencies were supposed to have been made from the original film. I set up the copying stand with the camera. Then I then focused on a transparency and figured out what should be the correct exposure. I don’t recall whether I varied exposures during the copying process. I was using Plus X for the black and white exposures and Extachrome for the color transparencies.

I found two close-up Ektachrome exposures of Z 317. By comparing the coverage of the frame I can tell they were separate exposures that night. They are close-ups because the condition of JFK’s head and its position were the critical elements. I haven’t a clue what Doug Horne saw in Hollywood (a scan of a 4th or 5th generation copy of Z 317) but I know what I was able to examine with a jewelers loup. They weren’t the same at all.

First of all, there’s no great change in the appearance of the back of JFK’s head between 314 and 319. It’s in shadow and the intensity of the shadow may change a bit as his head changes position vis a vis the sun. But there’s no significant change in appearance in 317. If some black, painted-on blog appeared in 317 it would be quite different from the frames around it. It isn't. Horne says “the hair was very brown, or perhaps a cross between auburn and light gray.” I don’t see any gray at all but brown with an auburn tone might be about right. What clearly is irretrievably not there is what Horne described as “a jet black patch with very straight artificial edges that appeared to be artwork to me, like opaque black paint placed on top of the natural image of his hair. It was as if a trapezoid (the black patch) with impossibly straight edges had been wrapped around the back of JFK’s head...” The back of the head in is in shadow so it is darker than the side or top. But there is no “jet black patch with very straight artificial edges.” I may be pressing my own eyes but sometimes it seems to me I can see the texture of hair in the shadow. There is nothing artificial-looking about the back of JFK’s head and it’s even possible to pick up a highlight here and there in what Horne calls his “jet black patch.”

Let’s be clear. I’m not saying that Horne is lying when he tells us what he observed in Hollywood. All I’m saying is that my close-up transparencies of Z 317 taken in November 1966 from LIFE’s 4" by 5" transparencies show a discernibly different picture than the one Horne describes. I know the provenance of my transparencies because I took them. I know transparencies don’t get better over time they get worse. Still, my transparencies don’t show anything like what Doug Horne has described.

I just looked at them again on a little light table I constructed. Folks this is really ridiculous. It isn’t even close. The sooner someone can publish good scans of the MPI transparencies the sooner we can put this little claim to bed.

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Thompson,

Miller help you with this image? It's blown out. Of not much use, IMHO... Can you be absolutely sure the LIFE 4x5 trannies you had access to (in 1966) were 1st generation, off the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film or, possibly off of Z-dupe 1, 2 or 3? And would you of known then the difference between the 4 films?

Thanks

DHealy

Thank you, Bill Kelly, for taking the time to post these excerpts from Doug Horne. We very much appreciate it.

It's hardly surprising that fervent believers in the legitimacy of the Zapruder film are unimpressed by Doug Horne's research on the subject. At this point, they have far too much time and energy invested in this one aspect of the assassination to admit they were wrong.

I have always been an agnostic on the question of film alteration. I don't see how anyone with an open mind can't admit that Doug Horne has raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the Zapruder film.

Hi Don,

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to post some more important parts when I am back on line.

I too really don't care if the Zapruder film has been altered or not.

If the Z-film can be shown to be for real, along with the accoustics, both can be entered into evidence as indictative of conspiracy before a grand jury.

If the Z-film can be shown to have been altered on an optical processor at "Hawkeye Works" in Rochester, then we have evidence of tampering and obstruction of justice and we know who did it and can take that to a grand jury as equally persuasive evidence of a crime.

So either way works for me.

BK

Bill Kelly, GREAT! Simple, to the point summation.... btw, it's optical film printing platform with process camera

Just a point to consider -- when we talk about obfuscation in relation to the Zapruder film, there are very simple categories that can accomplish that end without any red flags being raised (though they should).

One example of this is the fact that LIFE did not supply to the WC the best copy of the Zapruder it had. Therefore, whatever conclusions or inferences the WC made based on what they saw in the Zapruder were made based on evidence that was muddier than what they could have had.

Another area is the MPI Image of an Assassination. We are supposed to consider these films the latest and greatest versions of the Zapruder; but, in fact, they have not much definition and it is impossible to view detail. Was this simply an oversight?

Also, the version of the Zapruder Groden aired on Geraldo, though he claims to have enhanced it, scoped it, whatever, was of inferior quality in terms of color and definition compared to a very good copy. Why was this the public not provided with at least a screening of the best copy available?

Add these things to the so-called 'accidental' splices in at least two places on the original (just how do you burn film like that unless you are trying to alter it in the first place?), the missing copy of the film that we are apparently supposed to forget, plus the rogue copies, and we can get an idea of the scope of the shell game, if not hoax, being perpetrated on us right before our eyes.

Why do you think LIFE supplied the WC with any "copy" of the film? You seem unaware of the copy of the film they had to use, and unaware that Orth, from LIFE, brought the original film and projected it for the WC and some others (FBI, SS, whomever) on a day in Feb '64 (going on memory for Feb) ... and then sent the film to a NJ lab and had the first generation slides made, 3 sets, one for the FBI, one for the SS ... and one for the WC.

The Groden/Geraldo viewing. You ask why the public was not "provided" with a screening of the best copy available. The public wasn't "provided" any copy by anyone who had control of the film. That was Groden's bootleg copy he'd had tucked away for years. Do you know the provenance of the copy he had ... ever since he was a lab technician at a NJ photo lab ...

Barb :-)

considering the only intended client to view the Zapruder was/still is the Warren Commission and staff. They saw the film late February. By any account that leaves a few months before their screening date to do a wee-bit of "film alteration."

Moe Weitzman's lab was in New Jersey? Here all along I thought it was in New York. And thanks for pointing out the alleged Zapruder film was kept from general public viewing for years (till the Groden-GERALDO expose)... yet, even those years when Vietnam combat footage (from the mid 60's on), complete with US flag draped shipping casket arrival (here on the homeland) was network (ABC, NBC, CBS) staple fair during the evening dinner hour here in the USofA... Oh those tender American tummies...

Perhaps this is the time when one asks, just what the hell was the Warren Commission tasked to DO/FIND? In the spirit of Bill Miller:

In explaining the very sound reasons why I no longer think JFK was hit in the head from the rear and the front between Z 312 and Z 314 I am very much at a disadvantage. David Wimp offered a very complete, detailed, mathematically correct account as to why the "motion" I measured between Z 312 and Z 313 was in part due to the movement of Zapruder's camera. For five or six years all this material appeared on a web site. In addition, on the same web site were gifs of Zapruder frames showing that all the occupants of the limousine started slipping forward when Greer decelerated the limousine from 12 mph to about 8 mph starting at Z 308. I was disappointed when I went to the web site and found it had disappeared. Hence, I have no way of presenting to you the argument that changed my mind. Perhaps someone on this site downloaded Wimp's material. I also noted that I made arrangements for Wimp to appear at the AARC conference in Washington. He gave a talk there that included this material. The DVD of the conference is available.

Lacking this material, I have no way of giving you the information you want. My silence should not be taken as any sign of disrespect. Sadly, I have nothing to show you.

Josiah Thompson

ah yes, Dave Wimp, in the way of background:

quote on

This form of “Tink by proxy” arrangement would be infuriating enough to deal with, but it is exacerbated further by the composition of his “Gang” of pals. Some, such as Ron Hepler and Gary Mack, are well-known and established researchers in the case; regardless of differences, one knows who one is dealing with. But others, such as Joe Durnavich, David Wimp, and Craig Lamson, are more ephemeral. We are not permitted to know who they really are when they’re at home (of course, Gary Mack is Larry Dunkel, or someone else, when he’s at home, but that’s just a stage name issue); we are not permitted to know their employment, their background, their qualifications, or their credentials. The argument recently presented by Debra Conway of JFK Lancer is that private citizens buy The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, so private citizens—read “anonymous personalities”—should be able to criticise it. That’s undoubtedly true, and we have indeed received letters and emails from such members of the public, offering their opinions or criticisms. Whether that should be extended to public criticism of the book on a publicly accessible website is an interesting question; whether it should occur under the blessing of an organisation like JFK Lancer even more intriguing. But, nevertheless, we can live with it.

quote off

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ax/thegang.html

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

Josiah, I have never been anything but courteous with you on this forum. I have asked you a few hard questions, but in a perfectly appropriate manner. You have ignored me. Why? Are you incapable of commenting on anything that doesn't relate to Jim Fetzer?

I asked you simply to explain why, on another thread, you stated that the evidence for a frontal throat wound was lacking, but that you "didn't know" about the evidence for the throat wound being one of exit. To me, that seems highly inconsistent. While we can debate the case for a frontal wound to the throat, it seems to me that the only "evidence" for the throat wound being one of exit is to accept the single bullet theory. Do you now "not know" about the single bullet theory? I understand you postulated that the wound was caused by a fragment from the head, and I'm not arguing with that. I simply want to know how you can assess the state of the evidence for the throat wound being either of entrance or exit so differently.

If you're truly agnostic on this subject, your answer should be "don't know" either way. I would really appreciate a response from you.

Don

Dont feel too bad, after Thompson replied to my "Double Head Shot" thread he has ignored every post and any questions I have made since then

I guess I have to write a book for him to find me worthy enough of a simple reply

Dean