Did Zapruder take "the Zapruder film"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

All,

The gross deception involved in Tink's attack on me over the hole in

the windshield after I posted Lifton's query about SSA Taylor's report

has drawn a response from David, who has confronted him on the issue.

What is most stunning is that, in his childish determination to "get

Fetzer", he is willing to cannibalize his own book! That provides a

striking indication of the incoherence of his own thought processes.

This, I take it, is not the first time that he has been willing to

contradict SIX SECONDS, including his relatively recent denial of

evidence of the "double hit", which David Lifton had independently

discovered during his visit with Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in

physics, as he reports in BEST EVIDENCE. This new inconsistency has

thus reinforced my advice--that he (Tink) obtain professional help!

It is difficult to imagine the lengths to which the obsessed could

be driven in their frantic attempts to denigrate and destroy those

who incur their wrath. But, for someone whose "claim to fame" has

been a 1967 book published that led to considerable public acclaim,

including a cover story in The Saturday Evening Post, to dismember,

piece by piece, his own greatest achievement for the perverse pur-

pose of attacking his nemesis invites a Freudian interpretation.

His bizarre state of mind is further illustrated by his denial of

the obvious, including the excellence of the books on JFK that I

have edited. The first had 11 contributors, the second 9 and the

third 6. How plausible is it that none of these authors, whom I

invited to contribute as experts on various aspects of the case,

would have no discoveries of value? Yet that's what he contends.

Indeed, anyone who reads the reviews from Publishers Weekly and

the experts who have endorsed these books--including Cyril Wecht,

Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, Stewart Galanor, Kerry Walters,

David Lifton, and Michael Kurtz--knows better. Egad! Even Vincent

Bugliosi has conceded that mine are the only completely scientific

books ever published on JFK! So what is Josiah Thompson doing in

attacking them? Objectively, they are exceptional contributions!

Indeed, the only chapter he has ever praised--by Gary Aguilar in

MURDER--which focuses on the massive defect at the back of JFK's

skull, turns out to support a proof that the Zapruder was altered,

which has led him to remove that single sentence from his hatchet-

job review, because it undermines his persistent denial of proofs

the film is a fabrication and reflects his detachment from reality.

That he cannot accept proof after proof that the film is a fake--

many of which I have repeatedly reported on this forum--represents

one more indication of the gradual but continuous deterioration of

his mental competence. A man who devotes himself to perpetuating

deceptions may find himself no longer capable of separating truth

from fiction, reality from illusion. And that, I am sorry to say,

is how things stand with this pathetic man, whom I used to admire.

Jim

________________________

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

To: gum226@sbcglobal.net

Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. " <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"

Josiah Thompson

You write:

" In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see

damage to the windshield at the location later described as a

non-through-and-through hit from the rear."

"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the

windshield which was examined in March, 1964?

As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed

the FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963--states that "of

particular note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small

hole just left of center in the windshield. . . "

This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of

Commission Document 80.

And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you,

Josiah Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas,

published in 1967,

Now I have a few questions:

(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe

that the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the

windshield? And . .

(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .

(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).

Finally. . . , you write:

QUOTE:

"Fetzer keeps making up

these facts and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he

contaminates the field with non-facts."

In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles

Taylor is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted thei=

r

examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team

conducting the examination.

Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with

"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

You were the first to publish his report--which called attention to this

particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.

Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position

on this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new

evidence"which caused this change?

DSL

____________________

[Hide Quoted Text]

--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@ wrote:

Gee! Let's see. What could possibly be going on here? The team

of Thompson, Lamson, and Miller insists that something is wrong

with the studies of the Moorman LOS by Mantik, Fetzer, and White.

They seek to support it with manipulated images that they insist

show that Mantik, Fetzer, and White were wrong all along. There

is no good reason to believe it, but they persist--ad nauseum.

Why? The whole purpose of the study is to determine whether or

not there is internal evidence that impeaches the Zapruder and

other films, none of which show Mary was standing in the street.

Do Thompson, Lamson, and Miller accept other proofs that show

the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix films have been recreated to

conceal the true causes of death of JFK? Not on your life!

* They do not acknowledge that JFK's brains being blown out

to the right-front demonstrates the film is a fabrication.

* They do not acknowledge that the blood and brains were in

fact "painted in", as Roderick Ryan has observed.

* They do not acknowledge that Willliam Greer pulled the limo

to the left and stop to make sure that JFK would be killed.

* They do not acknowledge that Officer Chaney rode foreward

to inform Chief Curry that the president had been shot.

* They do not acknowledge that Secret Service agents grew

nauseated and vomited seeing brains and gore on the limo.

* They do not acknowledge that Homer McMahon reported see-

ing six to eight impacts from at least three directions.

* They do not acknowledge that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.,

has established that the autopsy X-rays were altered.

* They do not acknowledge that Mantik has shown that JFK

was hit four times (from the front and from the back).

* They do not acknowledge that Governor Connally was hit

from one to as many as three times from the side.

* They do not acknowledge that Erwin Swartz reported see-

ing JFK's brains blown out to the left and rear.

* They do not acknowledge that the Parkland physicians

reported cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding.

* They do not acknowledge that Connally's left turn has

been excised from the extant version of the film.

* They do not acknowledge that driver William Greer's

head turns were twice as fast as humanly possible.

* They do not acknowledge that JFK was hit in the

right temple by a frangible or exploding bullet.

* They do not acknowledge that the massive blow-out to

the back of JFK's head is visible in Z-frame 374.

* They do not acknowledge that LIFE published frame

232 with physically impossible features.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the Stemmons Freeway sign was improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the lamppost was likewise improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that no witnesses in the

plaza reported the back-and-to-the-left motion.

* They do not acknowledge that anyone has seen the

original version of the film before editing.

Under these circumstances, why would anyone, in

their wildest dreams, not also anticipate that

* They will not acknowledge that Mary stepped into

the street to take her famous photograph; and,

* They will not acknowledge that Mantik/Fetzer/

White have proven she was in the street;

and attempt to belittle efforts to demonstrate

that they are wrong about this rather minute

proof of alteration, in the face of massive

evidence to the contrary enumerated here?

Yet they would claim that Mantik, Fetzer, and

White are the ones who are perpetrating fraud

and deceiving the public about the authenticity

of the film and true causes of the death of JFK!

Who's fooling who? Who's out to pull the wool

over the eyes of the public? Who are the real

liars, cheats, and frauds? Is this too hard

for anyone here to figure out? You have heard

of "disinfo ops" that take place now and then.

You are now in the midst of living one through.

P.S. For those who may be unfamiliar with the available evidence:

The shot to the throat passed through the windshield (Doug Weldon in

MURDER has the most extensive analysis, with which I agree) on pages

129-158 of MURDER; the Altgens is on page 149; the Secret Service

substitute is on page 157; another on page 158; there are shards of

glass hit his face (the mortician noticed the "shrapnel wounds" and

Mantik explained them); you can see the hit on the windshield in the

film at frame 225. Jim Lewis has been traveling around the south and

visiting junkyards to fire high-velocity rounds through old cars and

they make the sound of a "firecracker" when they pass through (also

see page 436 of HOAX). Bob Livingston noted that the Secret Service

had obtained multiple windshields "for target practice" on pages 165-

166 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE; and Richard Dudman wrote about the hole

in the windshield in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, on page 167. So I

am not buying what you are selling. You can dupe lots of people, but

you can't dupe me over this. The shot passed through the windshield.

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

Nope, not that it matters. The fundumentals of photography don't rest upon those items. How about you? Costella?

Given that Costella's credentials fail your own standards (hell it appears YOU fail your own standards) please tell us again why you listen to him.

Edited April 4, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

All,

The gross deception involved in Tink's attack on me over the hole in

the windshield after I posted Lifton's query about SSA Taylor's report

has drawn a response from David, who has confronted him on the issue.

What is most stunning is that, in his childish determination to "get

Fetzer", he is willing to cannibalize his own book! That provides a

striking indication of the incoherence of his own thought processes.

This, I take it, is not the first time that he has been willing to

contradict SIX SECONDS, including his relatively recent denial of

evidence of the "double hit", which David Lifton had independently

discovered during his visit with Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in

physics, as he reports in BEST EVIDENCE. This new inconsistency has

thus reinforced my advice--that he (Tink) obtain professional help!

It is difficult to imagine the lengths to which the obsessed could

be driven in their frantic attempts to denigrate and destroy those

who incur their wrath. But, for someone whose "claim to fame" has

been a 1967 book published that led to considerable public acclaim,

including a cover story in The Saturday Evening Post, to dismember,

piece by piece, his own greatest achievement for the perverse pur-

pose of attacking his nemesis invites a Freudian interpretation.

His bizarre state of mind is further illustrated by his denial of

the obvious, including the excellence of the books on JFK that I

have edited. The first had 11 contributors, the second 9 and the

third 6. How plausible is it that none of these authors, whom I

invited to contribute as experts on various aspects of the case,

would have no discoveries of value? Yet that's what he contends.

Indeed, anyone who reads the reviews from Publishers Weekly and

the experts who have endorsed these books--including Cyril Wecht,

Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, Stewart Galanor, Kerry Walters,

David Lifton, and Michael Kurtz--knows better. Egad! Even Vincent

Bugliosi has conceded that mine are the only completely scientific

books ever published on JFK! So what is Josiah Thompson doing in

attacking them? Objectively, they are exceptional contributions!

Indeed, the only chapter he has ever praised--by Gary Aguilar in

MURDER--which focuses on the massive defect at the back of JFK's

skull, turns out to support a proof that the Zapruder was altered,

which has led him to remove that single sentence from his hatchet-

job review, because it undermines his persistent denial of proofs

the film is a fabrication and reflects his detachment from reality.

That he cannot accept proof after proof that the film is a fake--

many of which I have repeatedly reported on this forum--represents

one more indication of the gradual but continuous deterioration of

his mental competence. A man who devotes himself to perpetuating

deceptions may find himself no longer capable of separating truth

from fiction, reality from illusion. And that, I am sorry to say,

is how things stand with this pathetic man, whom I used to admire.

Jim

________________________

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

To: gum226@sbcglobal.net

Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. " <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"

Josiah Thompson

You write:

" In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see

damage to the windshield at the location later described as a

non-through-and-through hit from the rear."

"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the

windshield which was examined in March, 1964?

As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed

the FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963--states that "of

particular note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small

hole just left of center in the windshield. . . "

This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of

Commission Document 80.

And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you,

Josiah Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas,

published in 1967,

Now I have a few questions:

(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe

that the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the

windshield? And . .

(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .

(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).

Finally. . . , you write:

QUOTE:

"Fetzer keeps making up

these facts and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he

contaminates the field with non-facts."

In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles

Taylor is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted thei=

r

examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team

conducting the examination.

Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with

"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

You were the first to publish his report--which called attention to this

particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.

Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position

on this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new

evidence"which caused this change?

DSL

____________________

[Hide Quoted Text]

--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@ wrote:

Gee! Let's see. What could possibly be going on here? The team

of Thompson, Lamson, and Miller insists that something is wrong

with the studies of the Moorman LOS by Mantik, Fetzer, and White.

They seek to support it with manipulated images that they insist

show that Mantik, Fetzer, and White were wrong all along. There

is no good reason to believe it, but they persist--ad nauseum.

Why? The whole purpose of the study is to determine whether or

not there is internal evidence that impeaches the Zapruder and

other films, none of which show Mary was standing in the street.

Do Thompson, Lamson, and Miller accept other proofs that show

the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix films have been recreated to

conceal the true causes of death of JFK? Not on your life!

* They do not acknowledge that JFK's brains being blown out

to the right-front demonstrates the film is a fabrication.

* They do not acknowledge that the blood and brains were in

fact "painted in", as Roderick Ryan has observed.

* They do not acknowledge that Willliam Greer pulled the limo

to the left and stop to make sure that JFK would be killed.

* They do not acknowledge that Officer Chaney rode foreward

to inform Chief Curry that the president had been shot.

* They do not acknowledge that Secret Service agents grew

nauseated and vomited seeing brains and gore on the limo.

* They do not acknowledge that Homer McMahon reported see-

ing six to eight impacts from at least three directions.

* They do not acknowledge that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.,

has established that the autopsy X-rays were altered.

* They do not acknowledge that Mantik has shown that JFK

was hit four times (from the front and from the back).

* They do not acknowledge that Governor Connally was hit

from one to as many as three times from the side.

* They do not acknowledge that Erwin Swartz reported see-

ing JFK's brains blown out to the left and rear.

* They do not acknowledge that the Parkland physicians

reported cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding.

* They do not acknowledge that Connally's left turn has

been excised from the extant version of the film.

* They do not acknowledge that driver William Greer's

head turns were twice as fast as humanly possible.

* They do not acknowledge that JFK was hit in the

right temple by a frangible or exploding bullet.

* They do not acknowledge that the massive blow-out to

the back of JFK's head is visible in Z-frame 374.

* They do not acknowledge that LIFE published frame

232 with physically impossible features.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the Stemmons Freeway sign was improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the lamppost was likewise improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that no witnesses in the

plaza reported the back-and-to-the-left motion.

* They do not acknowledge that anyone has seen the

original version of the film before editing.

Under these circumstances, why would anyone, in

their wildest dreams, not also anticipate that

* They will not acknowledge that Mary stepped into

the street to take her famous photograph; and,

* They will not acknowledge that Mantik/Fetzer/

White have proven she was in the street;

and attempt to belittle efforts to demonstrate

that they are wrong about this rather minute

proof of alteration, in the face of massive

evidence to the contrary enumerated here?

Yet they would claim that Mantik, Fetzer, and

White are the ones who are perpetrating fraud

and deceiving the public about the authenticity

of the film and true causes of the death of JFK!

Who's fooling who? Who's out to pull the wool

over the eyes of the public? Who are the real

liars, cheats, and frauds? Is this too hard

for anyone here to figure out? You have heard

of "disinfo ops" that take place now and then.

You are now in the midst of living one through.

P.S. For those who may be unfamiliar with the available evidence:

The shot to the throat passed through the windshield (Doug Weldon in

MURDER has the most extensive analysis, with which I agree) on pages

129-158 of MURDER; the Altgens is on page 149; the Secret Service

substitute is on page 157; another on page 158; there are shards of

glass hit his face (the mortician noticed the "shrapnel wounds" and

Mantik explained them); you can see the hit on the windshield in the

film at frame 225. Jim Lewis has been traveling around the south and

visiting junkyards to fire high-velocity rounds through old cars and

they make the sound of a "firecracker" when they pass through (also

see page 436 of HOAX). Bob Livingston noted that the Secret Service

had obtained multiple windshields "for target practice" on pages 165-

166 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE; and Richard Dudman wrote about the hole

in the windshield in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, on page 167. So I

am not buying what you are selling. You can dupe lots of people, but

you can't dupe me over this. The shot passed through the windshield.

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

Nope, not that it matters. The fundumentals of photography don't rest upon those items. How about you? Costella?

Given that Costella's credentials fail your own standards (hell it appears YOU fail your own standards) please tell us again why you listen to him.

Quite a list there Fetzer, you list it as if it's fact. Fact it is not.? You list a boat load of opinion and, conjecture, and yet the only things you list that actually rise above that is the work of Costella and that has been trashed with unimpeachable empirical eivdence...here:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

But so it goes for Fetzer....his MO is quite clear.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You're an op, Lamson! Admit it. No one else would operate in such

reckless disregard of logic and evidence. Only a disinfo op like you!

All,

The gross deception involved in Tink's attack on me over the hole in

the windshield after I posted Lifton's query about SSA Taylor's report

has drawn a response from David, who has confronted him on the issue.

What is most stunning is that, in his childish determination to "get

Fetzer", he is willing to cannibalize his own book! That provides a

striking indication of the incoherence of his own thought processes.

This, I take it, is not the first time that he has been willing to

contradict SIX SECONDS, including his relatively recent denial of

evidence of the "double hit", which David Lifton had independently

discovered during his visit with Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in

physics, as he reports in BEST EVIDENCE. This new inconsistency has

thus reinforced my advice--that he (Tink) obtain professional help!

It is difficult to imagine the lengths to which the obsessed could

be driven in their frantic attempts to denigrate and destroy those

who incur their wrath. But, for someone whose "claim to fame" has

been a 1967 book published that led to considerable public acclaim,

including a cover story in The Saturday Evening Post, to dismember,

piece by piece, his own greatest achievement for the perverse pur-

pose of attacking his nemesis invites a Freudian interpretation.

His bizarre state of mind is further illustrated by his denial of

the obvious, including the excellence of the books on JFK that I

have edited. The first had 11 contributors, the second 9 and the

third 6. How plausible is it that none of these authors, whom I

invited to contribute as experts on various aspects of the case,

would have no discoveries of value? Yet that's what he contends.

Indeed, anyone who reads the reviews from Publishers Weekly and

the experts who have endorsed these books--including Cyril Wecht,

Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, Stewart Galanor, Kerry Walters,

David Lifton, and Michael Kurtz--knows better. Egad! Even Vincent

Bugliosi has conceded that mine are the only completely scientific

books ever published on JFK! So what is Josiah Thompson doing in

attacking them? Objectively, they are exceptional contributions!

Indeed, the only chapter he has ever praised--by Gary Aguilar in

MURDER--which focuses on the massive defect at the back of JFK's

skull, turns out to support a proof that the Zapruder was altered,

which has led him to remove that single sentence from his hatchet-

job review, because it undermines his persistent denial of proofs

the film is a fabrication and reflects his detachment from reality.

That he cannot accept proof after proof that the film is a fake--

many of which I have repeatedly reported on this forum--represents

one more indication of the gradual but continuous deterioration of

his mental competence. A man who devotes himself to perpetuating

deceptions may find himself no longer capable of separating truth

from fiction, reality from illusion. And that, I am sorry to say,

is how things stand with this pathetic man, whom I used to admire.

Jim

________________________

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

To: gum226@sbcglobal.net

Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. " <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"

Josiah Thompson

You write:

" In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see

damage to the windshield at the location later described as a

non-through-and-through hit from the rear."

"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the

windshield which was examined in March, 1964?

As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed

the FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963--states that "of

particular note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small

hole just left of center in the windshield. . . "

This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of

Commission Document 80.

And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you,

Josiah Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas,

published in 1967,

Now I have a few questions:

(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe

that the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the

windshield? And . .

(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .

(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).

Finally. . . , you write:

QUOTE:

"Fetzer keeps making up

these facts and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he

contaminates the field with non-facts."

In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles

Taylor is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted thei=

r

examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team

conducting the examination.

Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with

"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

You were the first to publish his report--which called attention to this

particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.

Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position

on this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new

evidence"which caused this change?

DSL

____________________

[Hide Quoted Text]

--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@ wrote:

Gee! Let's see. What could possibly be going on here? The team

of Thompson, Lamson, and Miller insists that something is wrong

with the studies of the Moorman LOS by Mantik, Fetzer, and White.

They seek to support it with manipulated images that they insist

show that Mantik, Fetzer, and White were wrong all along. There

is no good reason to believe it, but they persist--ad nauseum.

Why? The whole purpose of the study is to determine whether or

not there is internal evidence that impeaches the Zapruder and

other films, none of which show Mary was standing in the street.

Do Thompson, Lamson, and Miller accept other proofs that show

the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix films have been recreated to

conceal the true causes of death of JFK? Not on your life!

* They do not acknowledge that JFK's brains being blown out

to the right-front demonstrates the film is a fabrication.

* They do not acknowledge that the blood and brains were in

fact "painted in", as Roderick Ryan has observed.

* They do not acknowledge that Willliam Greer pulled the limo

to the left and stop to make sure that JFK would be killed.

* They do not acknowledge that Officer Chaney rode foreward

to inform Chief Curry that the president had been shot.

* They do not acknowledge that Secret Service agents grew

nauseated and vomited seeing brains and gore on the limo.

* They do not acknowledge that Homer McMahon reported see-

ing six to eight impacts from at least three directions.

* They do not acknowledge that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.,

has established that the autopsy X-rays were altered.

* They do not acknowledge that Mantik has shown that JFK

was hit four times (from the front and from the back).

* They do not acknowledge that Governor Connally was hit

from one to as many as three times from the side.

* They do not acknowledge that Erwin Swartz reported see-

ing JFK's brains blown out to the left and rear.

* They do not acknowledge that the Parkland physicians

reported cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding.

* They do not acknowledge that Connally's left turn has

been excised from the extant version of the film.

* They do not acknowledge that driver William Greer's

head turns were twice as fast as humanly possible.

* They do not acknowledge that JFK was hit in the

right temple by a frangible or exploding bullet.

* They do not acknowledge that the massive blow-out to

the back of JFK's head is visible in Z-frame 374.

* They do not acknowledge that LIFE published frame

232 with physically impossible features.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the Stemmons Freeway sign was improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the lamppost was likewise improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that no witnesses in the

plaza reported the back-and-to-the-left motion.

* They do not acknowledge that anyone has seen the

original version of the film before editing.

Under these circumstances, why would anyone, in

their wildest dreams, not also anticipate that

* They will not acknowledge that Mary stepped into

the street to take her famous photograph; and,

* They will not acknowledge that Mantik/Fetzer/

White have proven she was in the street;

and attempt to belittle efforts to demonstrate

that they are wrong about this rather minute

proof of alteration, in the face of massive

evidence to the contrary enumerated here?

Yet they would claim that Mantik, Fetzer, and

White are the ones who are perpetrating fraud

and deceiving the public about the authenticity

of the film and true causes of the death of JFK!

Who's fooling who? Who's out to pull the wool

over the eyes of the public? Who are the real

liars, cheats, and frauds? Is this too hard

for anyone here to figure out? You have heard

of "disinfo ops" that take place now and then.

You are now in the midst of living one through.

P.S. For those who may be unfamiliar with the available evidence:

The shot to the throat passed through the windshield (Doug Weldon in

MURDER has the most extensive analysis, with which I agree) on pages

129-158 of MURDER; the Altgens is on page 149; the Secret Service

substitute is on page 157; another on page 158; there are shards of

glass hit his face (the mortician noticed the "shrapnel wounds" and

Mantik explained them); you can see the hit on the windshield in the

film at frame 225. Jim Lewis has been traveling around the south and

visiting junkyards to fire high-velocity rounds through old cars and

they make the sound of a "firecracker" when they pass through (also

see page 436 of HOAX). Bob Livingston noted that the Secret Service

had obtained multiple windshields "for target practice" on pages 165-

166 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE; and Richard Dudman wrote about the hole

in the windshield in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, on page 167. So I

am not buying what you are selling. You can dupe lots of people, but

you can't dupe me over this. The shot passed through the windshield.

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

Nope, not that it matters. The fundumentals of photography don't rest upon those items. How about you? Costella?

Given that Costella's credentials fail your own standards (hell it appears YOU fail your own standards) please tell us again why you listen to him.

Quite a list there Fetzer, you list it as if it's fact. Fact it is not.? You list a boat load of opinion and, conjecture, and yet the only things you list that actually rise above that is the work of Costella and that has been trashed with unimpeachable empirical eivdence...here:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

But so it goes for Fetzer....his MO is quite clear.

[Craig Lamson]

You're an op, Lamson! Admit it. No one else would operate in such

reckless disregard of logic and evidence. Only a disinfo op like you!

[

Ah, the LAST refuge of a CT nutjob who has gone over the edge and been beaten at his own game!

Show us how THIS is disinfo...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Edited April 4, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Chris Davidson]

Whoever shot the film had troubles around frame 348, at least according to the extant film frame count.

http://72.130.171.242:8400/D8852/ZFRAMES.gif

With the the curb being stabilized, from 333-347 there is a nice flow. From 348-352(excluded) we get garbage. Then back to a smooth flow from 353.

Tom has picked apart(understatement of the year) the WC and supplied us with information which includes a shot near Altgen's.

The young man to Altgen's left, is diving at this point in time.

In Nix, other's are backing away.

Get the picture!!!!

chris

[Craig Lamson]

Whoever shot the film had troubles around frame 348, at least according to the extant film frame count.

http://72.130.171.242:8400/D8852/ZFRAMES.gif

With the the curb being stabilized, from 333-347 there is a nice flow. From 348-352(excluded) we get garbage. Then back to a smooth flow from 353.

Tom has picked apart(understatement of the year) the WC and supplied us with information which includes a shot near Altgen's.

The young man to Altgen's left, is diving at this point in time.

In Nix, other's are backing away.

Get the picture!!!!

chris

Oh yea, I've got your picture....

[Josiah Thompson]

I didn't even know this post was here. Fetzer has taken to channeling David Lifton on several sites at the same time. Hence, it is difficult to keep up. Below is my reply to Lifton in bold face:

Welcome, David Lifton.

Fetzer has pointed out that you "confronted" me on the issue of the hole in the

windshield and that you have shown that I am "willing to cannibalize [my] own

book." Then he reproduced on this board the email you sent me with a copy to

him. When I received your email I asked permission to answer it on this board.

Since Fetzer has already posted your email on this board, I no longer require

your permission to quote it and reply to it.

Your email reads as follows:

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink. net>

To: gum226@sbcglobal. net

Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. "

Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"

Josiah Thompson,

You write:

"In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see damage

to the windshield at the location later described as a non-through-and-through

hit from the rear."

"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the

windshield which was examined in March, 1964?

As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed the

FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963 – states that "of particular

note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small hole just left

of center in the windshield. . . "

This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of

Commission Document 80.

And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you, Josiah

Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas, published in

1967.

Now I have a few questions:

(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe that

the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the windshield? And

. .

(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .

(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).

Finally. . . , you write:

"Fetzer keeps making up these facts and offering them without qualification. In

doing so, he

contaminates the field with non-facts."

In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles Taylor

is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted their

examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team

conducting the examination.

Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with

"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

You were the first to publish his report – which called attention to this

particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.

Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position on

this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new

evidence"which caused this change?

DSL

What is immediately obvious is that you duck my main charge against Fetzer. I

wrote:

"The problem is that Fetzer and company are in the process of making up an

alternative reality based upon misinterpretations of witness statements and

ignoring important photographs. For example, in the post you are replying to,

Fetzer says, "This is related to the bullet hole in Altgens 5.." But there is no

bullet hole in Altgens 5. What Fetzer takes to be a bullet hole is a swirl in

the dress of a spectator seen through the windshield.... Just as he was mistaken

in thinking Bill Greer turned around and shot Kennedy with a chrome revolver

(based, as happens so often with Fetzer, on a blurry copy of the Zapruder film),

so he sees a bullet hole where there is none because he is looking at a blurry

copy of the Altgens photo. In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls

away, one can see damage to the windshield at the location later described as a

non-through-and-through hit from the rear. Fetzer keeps making up these facts

and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he contaminates the field

with non-facts.

I said Fetzer simply made up the fact that Altgens 5 shows a bullet hole in the

windshield when it doesn't. This is my illustration of why Fetzer's approach is

so pernicious because it contaminates the field of what is to be taken as

evidence. Since you ducked the basic charge I leveled against Fetzer, this

means to me that you are not about to get into a discussion as to whether

Fetzer's claim about the windshield is mistaken. Instead, you come on very

strong against my more innocuous statement that "in the later Altgens 6, taken

as the limousine pulls away, one can see damage to the windshield at the

location later described as a non-through-and-through hit from the rear."

You spend a lot of time dealing with CD 80, three pages of which are printed in

miniature in an appendix to "Six Seconds in Dallas." CD 80 is a January 6, 1964

letter from Chief Rowley of the Secret Service to J. Lee Rankin of the

Commission. You make a lot of a comment from a SA Charles Taylor of the Secret

Service. I had never heard of SA Taylor and his only appearance in the three

pages I published of CD 60 is the comment from Chief Rowley that "there is

attached a copy of a report of SA Charles Taylor of the Washington Field Office

concerning the security measures surrounding the car and the activity at the

White house garage in connection with the search of the vehicle."

Chief Rowley goes on to point out that William Greer never noticed the cracks in

the windshield as he drove to the hospital. SA Hickey drove the car to Love

Field and said the damage "was not extensive enough to affect his vision."

Hickey pointed out that the windshield "in the area around the damage was

spattered with debris." SA Kinney drove the car from Andrews Air Field to the

White House garage. He "noticed very little damage to the windshield when he

was loading it on the plane; that the damage was more noticeable when he arrived

at the garage." Two paragraphs in Chief Rowley's letter refer to the detailed

examination of the windshield made in the garage. They are the following:

"Special Officer Davis of the Secret Service and SA Gies stated that they

noticed the damage to the windshield when the car arrived at the garage, that

both of them ran their hands over the outside surface of the windshield and

found it to be smooth and unbroken, and that the damage to the windshield was

entirely on the inside surface. Both were present when the windshield was

removed from the car by the Arlington Glass Company and noticed that the removal

caused the cracks in the glass to lengthen, but the outside surface still

remained unbroken and there is no hole or crack through the windshield."

"Special Agent Gies has viewed the photographs of the windshield taken by the

FBI and states that the damage noticeable to the windshield when it was first

brought into the garage was not as extensive as reflected in this photograph:

i.e. the cracks were not so apparent. Apparently, there was only a small

spiderweb-like damage visible on the inside of the windshield when the car

arrived, but SA Gies is of the opinion that the temperature changes involved in

the flight from Dallas, the temperature change and vibration from driving the

car from Andrews Air Field to the White House garage, and then the storing of

the car in the warm temperature of the White House garage is responsible for the

change in the appearance of the damaged area of the windshield visible in the

photograph taken by the FBI. The photograph is attached and labeled Exhibit I."

From this letter, it appears that SA Agent Charles Taylor submitted a report

about "security measures surrounding the car" and activity "in connection with

the search of the vehicle." From the comment you quote, it would seem he

observed an FBI examination of the vehicle. Since you quote only one sentence

from Taylor's report, we don't know the basis for his observation. On the other

hand, we know from Rowley's letter that SA Geis and Officer Davis both "ran

their hands over the outside surface of the windshield and found it to be smooth

and unbroken, and that the damage to the windshield was entirely on the inside

surface." Later, when the windshield was removed, they noticed "the removal

caused the cracks in the glass to lengthen, but the outside surface still

remained unbroken and there is no hole or crack through the windshield."

You ignored these very telling facts and contented yourself with only quoting a

sentence from Taylor's report.

No further reply to your many questions is needed. It's clear, in this

instance, that you like Fetzer, only mention that part of the evidence that

favors your claim while ignoring the rest. This is the furthest remove from

true historical scholarship. Nor has this always been the way you operated. In

the past you showed less of an intent to be "right" and more respect for what

the evidence itself showed. Also in the past, you never made your points

accompanied by an unpleasant and unflattering smirk. I am sorry to see this

happen.

Josiah Thompson

All,

The gross deception involved in Tink's attack on me over the hole in

the windshield after I posted Lifton's query about SSA Taylor's report

has drawn a response from David, who has confronted him on the issue.

What is most stunning is that, in his childish determination to "get

Fetzer", he is willing to cannibalize his own book! That provides a

striking indication of the incoherence of his own thought processes.

This, I take it, is not the first time that he has been willing to

contradict SIX SECONDS, including his relatively recent denial of

evidence of the "double hit", which David Lifton had independently

discovered during his visit with Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in

physics, as he reports in BEST EVIDENCE. This new inconsistency has

thus reinforced my advice--that he (Tink) obtain professional help!

It is difficult to imagine the lengths to which the obsessed could

be driven in their frantic attempts to denigrate and destroy those

who incur their wrath. But, for someone whose "claim to fame" has

been a 1967 book published that led to considerable public acclaim,

including a cover story in The Saturday Evening Post, to dismember,

piece by piece, his own greatest achievement for the perverse pur-

pose of attacking his nemesis invites a Freudian interpretation.

His bizarre state of mind is further illustrated by his denial of

the obvious, including the excellence of the books on JFK that I

have edited. The first had 11 contributors, the second 9 and the

third 6. How plausible is it that none of these authors, whom I

invited to contribute as experts on various aspects of the case,

would have no discoveries of value? Yet that's what he contends.

Indeed, anyone who reads the reviews from Publishers Weekly and

the experts who have endorsed these books--including Cyril Wecht,

Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, Stewart Galanor, Kerry Walters,

David Lifton, and Michael Kurtz--knows better. Egad! Even Vincent

Bugliosi has conceded that mine are the only completely scientific

books ever published on JFK! So what is Josiah Thompson doing in

attacking them? Objectively, they are exceptional contributions!

Indeed, the only chapter he has ever praised--by Gary Aguilar in

MURDER--which focuses on the massive defect at the back of JFK's

skull, turns out to support a proof that the Zapruder was altered,

which has led him to remove that single sentence from his hatchet-

job review, because it undermines his persistent denial of proofs

the film is a fabrication and reflects his detachment from reality.

That he cannot accept proof after proof that the film is a fake--

many of which I have repeatedly reported on this forum--represents

one more indication of the gradual but continuous deterioration of

his mental competence. A man who devotes himself to perpetuating

deceptions may find himself no longer capable of separating truth

from fiction, reality from illusion. And that, I am sorry to say,

is how things stand with this pathetic man, whom I used to admire.

Jim

________________________

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

To: gum226@sbcglobal.net

Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. " <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"

Josiah Thompson

You write:

" In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see

damage to the windshield at the location later described as a

non-through-and-through hit from the rear."

"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the

windshield which was examined in March, 1964?

As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed

the FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963--states that "of

particular note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small

hole just left of center in the windshield. . . "

This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of

Commission Document 80.

And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you,

Josiah Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas,

published in 1967,

Now I have a few questions:

(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe

that the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the

windshield? And . .

(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .

(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).

Finally. . . , you write:

QUOTE:

"Fetzer keeps making up

these facts and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he

contaminates the field with non-facts."

In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles

Taylor is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted thei=

r

examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team

conducting the examination.

Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with

"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

You were the first to publish his report--which called attention to this

particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.

Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position

on this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new

evidence"which caused this change?

DSL

____________________

[Don Jeffries]

Josiah,

If we can leave aside the issue of film alteration for a moment, would you please answer a few questions?

First, do you believe there was an actual hole in the windshield at some point, as reported by a handful of credible witnesses?

Second, do you believe there was a huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, as reported by numerous medical people in Dallas?

Third, do you believe the non-fatal rear entry wound was lccated 5-6 inches down on JFK's back, as evidenced by the holes in his clothing, Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death, Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report, etc.?

[Chris Davidson]

Whoever shot the film had troubles around frame 348, at least according to the extant film frame count.

http://72.130.171.242:8400/D8852/ZFRAMES.gif

With the the curb being stabilized, from 333-347 there is a nice flow. From 348-352(excluded) we get garbage. Then back to a smooth flow from 353.

Tom has picked apart(understatement of the year) the WC and supplied us with information which includes a shot near Altgen's.

The young man to Altgen's left, is diving at this point in time.

In Nix, other's are backing away.

Get the picture!!!!

chris

Oh yea, I've got your picture....

Good.

Now,

Zapruder was so inept at filming, even with the limo traveling at approx 10 mph, right in front of him, this is where it ends up within the frame,compared to cars traveling at approx 40 mph.

Now, move those limo participants into their approx proper location.

Much better!!!! Getting them closer to center frame. A little more realistic.

The SUV which rides higher than the limo, would put the limo occupants even closer to center frame.

chris

Edited April 6, 2009 by Chris Davidson

[Craig Lamson]

Whoever shot the film had troubles around frame 348, at least according to the extant film frame count.

http://72.130.171.242:8400/D8852/ZFRAMES.gif

With the the curb being stabilized, from 333-347 there is a nice flow. From 348-352(excluded) we get garbage. Then back to a smooth flow from 353.

Tom has picked apart(understatement of the year) the WC and supplied us with information which includes a shot near Altgen's.

The young man to Altgen's left, is diving at this point in time.

In Nix, other's are backing away.

Get the picture!!!!

chris

Oh yea, I've got your picture....

Good.

Now,

Zapruder was so inept at filming, even with the limo traveling at approx 10 mph, right in front of him, this is where it ends up within the frame,compared to cars traveling at approx 40 mph.

Now, move those limo participants into their approx proper location.

Much better!!!! Getting them closer to center frame. A little more realistic.

The SUV which rides higher than the limo, would put the limo occupants even closer to center frame.

chris

Well folks in yet another AMAZING discovery, chris davidson, poster child for the superb method of research, the form a conclusion and mold the evidence to fit, has found that amateur photographer Abe Zapruder was ...well...an amateur! Film at eleven! Sorry but that's worth about a buck fifty in Zimbabwe

[Chris Davidson]

Craig,

I'm pretty sure the residents of Zimbabwe recognize Elm St. goes downhill.

You encourage others to recreate examples for comparison, yet when the result is starkly different, you write it off as "filmed by an amateur".

Please show us your pedestal footage.

In fact, the offer extends to everyone.

Let's see what other amateur/ even professional results look like.

And while we're waiting, I'll provide them with another comparison example(from the pedestal) of a car traveling downhill.

A Z difference of 6 degrees CCW at this point.

Follow that curbline.

chris

Edited April 6, 2009 by Chris Davidson

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I'm pretty sure the residents of Zimbabwe recognize Elm St. goes downhill.

You encourage others to recreate examples for comparison, yet when the result is starkly different, you write it off as "filmed by an amateur".

Please show us your pedestal footage.

In fact, the offer extends to everyone.

Let's see what other amateur/ even professional results look like.

And while we're waiting, I'll provide them with another comparison example(from the pedestal) of a car traveling downhill.

A Z difference of 6 degrees CCW at this point.

Follow that curbline.

chris

Unlike you I'm not ignorant enough to think a comparison of the panning ability of two different people many years apart has any validity. Your expectations of the performance by Zpruder was unmet, BFD! Your expectaions are meaningless. You ever spend any time working in a photofinishing house that did consumer film processing? Ever stood at the end of the dryer and watched the thousands of cut off heads, tilted horizons, poorly focused or photos marred by massive camera movementt? If you have that experience then your opinion and conclusion might have a TINY BIT OF WEIGHT...TINY! However it would carry NO weight as evidence ....

You are down to 50 cents.

BTW Chris appears your wonderful recreation frame might be 3-5 degrees over rotated in the clockwise direction IF the signs and posts are anywhere near true vertical. Great panning !

Edited April 6, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

Follow that curbline.

chris

Help me out here ... what exactly are you saying now? I shot Groden at the Hudson location and overlaid it onto Zapruder's frame and it matched. It was shown in the Mystery Man in the Pyracantha Bush study.

[Chris Davidson]

Craig,

I'm pretty sure the residents of Zimbabwe recognize Elm St. goes downhill.

You encourage others to recreate examples for comparison, yet when the result is starkly different, you write it off as "filmed by an amateur".

Please show us your pedestal footage.

In fact, the offer extends to everyone.

Let's see what other amateur/ even professional results look like.

And while we're waiting, I'll provide them with another comparison example(from the pedestal) of a car traveling downhill.

A Z difference of 6 degrees CCW at this point.

Follow that curbline.

chris

Unlike you I'm not ignorant enough to think a comparison of the panning ability of two different people many years apart has any validity. Your expectations of the performance by Zpruder was unmet, BFD! Your expectaions are meaningless. You ever spend any time working in a photofinishing house that did consumer film processing? Ever stood at the end of the dryer and watched the thousands of cut off heads, tilted horizons, poorly focused or photos marred by massive camera movementt? If you have that experience then your opinion and conclusion might have a TINY BIT OF WEIGHT...TINY! However it would carry NO weight as evidence ....

You are down to 50 cents.

BTW Chris appears your wonderful recreation frame might be 3-5 degrees over rotated in the clockwise direction IF the signs and posts are anywhere near true vertical. Great panning !

Craig,

Not really interested in conjecture. Or your film processing scenario's.

It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I guess the focal point of Zapruders film, according to you, should be street signs, poles etc.etc.

That's about what we get from the film.

Until you show us some footage from your pedestal experiments, there is nothing more to say.

In regards to verticality, well the pole is and the road heads downward.

chris

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I'm pretty sure the residents of Zimbabwe recognize Elm St. goes downhill.

You encourage others to recreate examples for comparison, yet when the result is starkly different, you write it off as "filmed by an amateur".

Please show us your pedestal footage.

In fact, the offer extends to everyone.

Let's see what other amateur/ even professional results look like.

And while we're waiting, I'll provide them with another comparison example(from the pedestal) of a car traveling downhill.

A Z difference of 6 degrees CCW at this point.

Follow that curbline.

chris

Unlike you I'm not ignorant enough to think a comparison of the panning ability of two different people many years apart has any validity. Your expectations of the performance by Zpruder was unmet, BFD! Your expectaions are meaningless. You ever spend any time working in a photofinishing house that did consumer film processing? Ever stood at the end of the dryer and watched the thousands of cut off heads, tilted horizons, poorly focused or photos marred by massive camera movementt? If you have that experience then your opinion and conclusion might have a TINY BIT OF WEIGHT...TINY! However it would carry NO weight as evidence ....

You are down to 50 cents.

BTW Chris appears your wonderful recreation frame might be 3-5 degrees over rotated in the clockwise direction IF the signs and posts are anywhere near true vertical. Great panning !

Craig,

Not really interested in conjecture. Or your film processing scenario's.

It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I guess the focal point of Zapruders film, according to you, should be street signs, poles etc.etc.

That's about what we get from the film.

Until you show us some footage from your pedestal experiments, there is nothing more to say.

In regards to verticality, well the pole is and the road heads downward.

chris

Is the pole vertical? Really? You REALLY sure about that? You have the camera level?

You are correct, there really IS nothing more to say. You posted a comparison that had no meaning in regards tot he Zapruder film and you got your hat handed to you. Its was a comparison and CONCLUSION SO STUPID that it eclipses even the worst work of your fellow traveler in LALA land, Jack White.

I'm so happy you got to shoot some film from the pedestal, MAYBE you can find some use for it that has actual value, but sady, your attempts here are an utter failure.

Sorry you are broke now.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Craig Lamson