Jump to content

The Zapruder Film


Recommended Posts

Without getting into specifics or restarting recent debates - there's so much "action" in the way of unexplained phenomena in the commonly seen version that it's impossible to rule out tampering.

Oh, OK - the limo motion and jerk forward, and the all-lawn background of much of the tight-shot portion. That's two.

Descriptions of other versions, by Rich Della Rossa and others, must also be taken in account here.

David,

There are a dozen threads going on here discussing alterations, and refuting alteration allegations.

I want to know, if the Zapruder film is what Tink Tompson and others say it is - an accuate portrayal of the murder - then what does it tell us?

If it was altered, why was it altered? To hide something that it would have told us if it wasn't altered?

This thread is working on the assumption that the film can be shown to be an accurate portrayal of the murder, and therefor, I want to know what it does show and tell?

BK

Sorry - To be more exact, the amount of "action" in the commonly seen Z-film tends to obscure answer to three of your questions:

"Does it tell us which direction the bullet came from?"

- Not with the rotoscopy and edits applied to the head wounds.

"Does it tell us how many shots there were and what damage they did?"

- Not with the abovenamed effects, nor with the freeway sign, or the car motion edit.

"Does it tell us Moorman was not in the street when she took the photo, and that witness testimony is not always accurate?"

- Not with the altered and non-reactive background figures.

So - the film obscures more than it answers, and the answers to these three questions have to be No, though another film of the assassination might afford different answers.

So David, you believe the film has been altered. Now when was this done and who did it? Was it done before the copies were made or after the copies were made?

Thanks,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bill you may find this information from Doug Horne interesting...

B..

The following excerpts are taken from three enclosures in ARRB Document

D-133, which was prepared by Doug Horne. Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97

Date: 07/14/97

Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon

. . .

Mr. McMahon was manager of the NPIC (National Photo Interpretation

Center) color lab in 1963. About two days after the assassination of

President Kennedy, but before the funeral took place, a Secret Service

agent named "Bill Smith" delivered an amateur film of the assassination

to NPIC and requested that color prints be mde of frames believed to be

associated with wounding ("frames in which shots occurred"), for purpos-

es of assembling a briefing board. Mr. Smith did not explain who the

briefing boards would be for, or who would be briefed. The only persons

who witnessed this activity (which McMahon described as "an all night

job") were USSS agent Smith, Homer McMahon, and Ben Hunter (McMahon's

assistant). Although no materials produced were stamped with classifi-

cations markings, Smith told McMahon that the subject matter was to be

treated as "above top secret"; McMahon said not even his supervisor was

allowed to know what he was working on, nor was his supervisor allowed

to participate. Smith told McMahon that the had personally picked up

the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it) in

Dallas, flown it to Rochester, N.Y. (where it was developed by Kodak),

and then flown it down to NPIC in Washington so that enlargements of

selected frames could be made on NPIC's state-of-the-art equipment.

After the film (either an unslit original or possibly a duplicate)

was viewed more than once on a 16 mm projector in a briefing room at

NPIC, the original (a double-8 mm unslit original) was placed in a 10x

20x40 precison enlarger, and 5" X 7" format internegatives were made

from selected frames. A full-immersion "wet-gate" or liquid gate pro-

cess was used on the original film to reduce refractivity of the film

and maximize the optical quality of the internegatives. Subsequently,

three each 5" X 7" contact prints were made from the internegative. He

recalled that a mimimum of 20, and a maximum of 40 frames were duplicat-

ed via internegatives and prints. All prints, internegatives, and scraps

were turned over to Bill Smith at the conclusion of the work.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 08/14/97

Date: 08/14/97

Topic: Processing of Zapruder Film by NPIC in 1963 (Revised August 15,

1997)

. . .

I asked both men [Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter] if they still recall-

ed that their event occurred prior to the President's funeral, and they

both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed

their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and

Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the sec-

ond night after the assassination (i.e., Saturday night).

. . .

Home McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated

definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester,

and that copies of it were made in Rochester also, and that he personal-

ly watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night

prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed

that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture

film would "probably have been made in Rochester", but did not independ-

ently recall.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 06/18/97

Date: 06/17/97

Topic: ARRB Staff Interviewed Ben Hunter (Grammatical Edits Made on

June 19, 1997)(Final Edit Made June 20, 1997)

. . .

-The Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture; in fact, Hun-

ter said that NPIC did not have that capability for color movies, since

they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for

the most part. He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., loc-

ate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, includ-

ing "studying frames leading up to shots", and then produce color prints

from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots

impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on

a light table and using a loupe to examine individual frames. He does not

recall whether they received any instructions as to number of shots, or

any guidance as to where to look in the film.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97

Date: 07/14/97

Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon

. . .

Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur-

rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was

a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President

Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-

timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were

3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in

selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said

"you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to

produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said

that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed

the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.

. . .

END

Thanks B.

Horne's work on the autopsy photos and x-ray positively make them unsuitable as evidence, as not only is the provenance undetermined or broken, those who took the photos and x-rays can't identify them. Therefore, a court would order new photos and x-rays taken and a proper forensic autopsy performed in order to develop new evidence for the court to consider.

We can't do that with the Z-film. It is either legit or not legit.

If not legit, then who altered it, when did they do it and why?

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting into specifics or restarting recent debates - there's so much "action" in the way of unexplained phenomena in the commonly seen version that it's impossible to rule out tampering.

Oh, OK - the limo motion and jerk forward, and the all-lawn background of much of the tight-shot portion. That's two.

Descriptions of other versions, by Rich Della Rossa and others, must also be taken in account here.

David,

There are a dozen threads going on here discussing alterations, and refuting alteration allegations.

I want to know, if the Zapruder film is what Tink Tompson and others say it is - an accuate portrayal of the murder - then what does it tell us?

If it was altered, why was it altered? To hide something that it would have told us if it wasn't altered?

This thread is working on the assumption that the film can be shown to be an accurate portrayal of the murder, and therefor, I want to know what it does show and tell?

BK

Sorry - To be more exact, the amount of "action" in the commonly seen Z-film tends to obscure answer to three of your questions:

"Does it tell us which direction the bullet came from?"

- Not with the rotoscopy and edits applied to the head wounds.

"Does it tell us how many shots there were and what damage they did?"

- Not with the abovenamed effects, nor with the freeway sign, or the car motion edit.

"Does it tell us Moorman was not in the street when she took the photo, and that witness testimony is not always accurate?"

- Not with the altered and non-reactive background figures.

So - the film obscures more than it answers, and the answers to these three questions have to be No, though another film of the assassination might afford different answers.

So David, you believe the film has been altered. Now when was this done and who did it? Was it done before the copies were made or after the copies were made?

Thanks,

BK

Bill - I don't want to challenge a strictly established rubric. I see what you're doing and why it should be logically and rhetorically inviolate in order to produce useful results. When I made my first post I missed it, as I had limited internet time, and I was brief because I didn't want to revive the recent "Moorman in the street" debate within your topic.

I have not worked out the conflicting accounts of Z-film handling and travel of the negs and prints on that weekend or after. Nor have I reconciled all of the alterations that different researchers have noted. I have just seen enough that differs from eyewitness accounts and from responsible critical perceptions (among the many perceptions of several researchers) to believe that there has been alteration when I watch the film. Reading some accounts of suspected alterations helps me explore issues of discontinuity - nearly physical reactions to violations of time and sequence - that have bothered me during every close viewing.

You may recall a thread that I started on the direction of the frontal head shot, wherein I later deleted the main post and apologized for dragging readers through hypotheses gained by watching the head shot repeatedly and trying to gauge which part of the underpass JFK's face was turned toward at the strike moment. That was a waste of a late night, and the conclusion I had next morning was that the rotoscopy and editing done on the head wound confused perception of the lateral placement of the shooter. So, yes, the amount of post-filming "action" I see in the common Z-film version has colored my research philosophy in the case of understanding your topic. If there seemed to be a dismissive or reductive tone in my post - I assure you, it was residual contempt for the people that tried to pass off what I believe is a fabrication. Which is not, though, the clean path to logic in research.

I don't think I'm wrong about visible alterations. But I do think, emphatically, that yours is a great line of inquiry, reductive in precisely the most useful ways, and I'm looking forward to seeing it develop with researchers' contributions. I'll follow these, and if I can add something that I feel is a contribution within the rubric, I will.

People on all sides of this thing - some with agendas, some lacking information - have been telling us, over decades, what the commonly seen Z-film shows. It is time that the sort of people that attracted me to this forum had a go at it. So - a promising new chapter in research, and thanks for it.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting into specifics or restarting recent debates - there's so much "action" in the way of unexplained phenomena in the commonly seen version that it's impossible to rule out tampering.

Oh, OK - the limo motion and jerk forward, and the all-lawn background of much of the tight-shot portion. That's two.

Descriptions of other versions, by Rich Della Rossa and others, must also be taken in account here.

David,

There are a dozen threads going on here discussing alterations, and refuting alteration allegations.

I want to know, if the Zapruder film is what Tink Tompson and others say it is - an accuate portrayal of the murder - then what does it tell us?

If it was altered, why was it altered? To hide something that it would have told us if it wasn't altered?

This thread is working on the assumption that the film can be shown to be an accurate portrayal of the murder, and therefor, I want to know what it does show and tell?

BK

Sorry - To be more exact, the amount of "action" in the commonly seen Z-film tends to obscure answer to three of your questions:

"Does it tell us which direction the bullet came from?"

- Not with the rotoscopy and edits applied to the head wounds.

"Does it tell us how many shots there were and what damage they did?"

- Not with the abovenamed effects, nor with the freeway sign, or the car motion edit.

"Does it tell us Moorman was not in the street when she took the photo, and that witness testimony is not always accurate?"

- Not with the altered and non-reactive background figures.

So - the film obscures more than it answers, and the answers to these three questions have to be No, though another film of the assassination might afford different answers.

So David, you believe the film has been altered. Now when was this done and who did it? Was it done before the copies were made or after the copies were made?

Thanks,

BK

Bill - I don't want to challenge a strictly established rubric. I see what you're doing and why it should be logically and rhetorically inviolate in order to produce useful results. When I made my first post I missed it, as I had limited internet time, and I was brief because I didn't want to revive the recent "Moorman in the street" debate within your topic.

I have not worked out the conflicting accounts of Z-film handling and travel of the negs and prints on that weekend or after. Nor have I reconciled all of the alterations that different researchers have noted. I have just seen enough that differs from eyewitness accounts and from responsible critical perceptions among those of several researchers to believe that there has been alteration when i watch the film.

You may recall a thread that I started on the direction of the frontal head shot, wherein I later deleted the main post and apologized for dragging readers through hypotheses gained by watching the headshot repeatedly and trying to gauge which part of the underpass JFK face was turned toward at the strike moment. That was a waste of a late night, and the conclusion I had next morning was that the rotoscopy and editing done on the head wound confused perception of the lateral placement of the shooter. So, yes, the amount of post-filming "action" I see in the common Z-film version has colored my logic in the case of your topic.

But I don't think I'm wrong. I do think, emphatically, that yours is a great line of inquiry, and I'm looking forward to seeing it develop with researchers' contributions. I'll follow these, and if I can add something that I feel is a contribution within the rubric, I will.

So David, you think you might be a subject of my thesis that the more you look at a photo or film the more anomalies you see?

And if your suspicions are correct, you don't know whether the Z filim was altered before or after the three copies were made?

As for Mooreman, did she misremember stepping into the street or when she stepped into the street, or did they fabricate the Z film in order to hide that fact and other aspects of conspiracy the film must have held before they altered it?

Or do we have yet another shellshocked, unstable witness (a cop of that era would probably say 'dizzy broad') who was one of the closest people to unexpectedly see the president get his head blown off?

If I have to chose between massive technical alteration of the film or dizzy broad, I'll go with the dizzy broad effect.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting into specifics or restarting recent debates - there's so much "action" in the way of unexplained phenomena in the commonly seen version that it's impossible to rule out tampering.

Oh, OK - the limo motion and jerk forward, and the all-lawn background of much of the tight-shot portion. That's two.

Descriptions of other versions, by Rich Della Rossa and others, must also be taken in account here.

David,

There are a dozen threads going on here discussing alterations, and refuting alteration allegations.

I want to know, if the Zapruder film is what Tink Tompson and others say it is - an accuate portrayal of the murder - then what does it tell us?

If it was altered, why was it altered? To hide something that it would have told us if it wasn't altered?

This thread is working on the assumption that the film can be shown to be an accurate portrayal of the murder, and therefor, I want to know what it does show and tell?

BK

Sorry - To be more exact, the amount of "action" in the commonly seen Z-film tends to obscure answer to three of your questions:

"Does it tell us which direction the bullet came from?"

- Not with the rotoscopy and edits applied to the head wounds.

"Does it tell us how many shots there were and what damage they did?"

- Not with the abovenamed effects, nor with the freeway sign, or the car motion edit.

"Does it tell us Moorman was not in the street when she took the photo, and that witness testimony is not always accurate?"

- Not with the altered and non-reactive background figures.

So - the film obscures more than it answers, and the answers to these three questions have to be No, though another film of the assassination might afford different answers.

So David, you believe the film has been altered. Now when was this done and who did it? Was it done before the copies were made or after the copies were made?

Thanks,

BK

Bill - I don't want to challenge a strictly established rubric. I see what you're doing and why it should be logically and rhetorically inviolate in order to produce useful results. When I made my first post I missed it, as I had limited internet time, and I was brief because I didn't want to revive the recent "Moorman in the street" debate within your topic.

I have not worked out the conflicting accounts of Z-film handling and travel of the negs and prints on that weekend or after. Nor have I reconciled all of the alterations that different researchers have noted. I have just seen enough that differs from eyewitness accounts and from responsible critical perceptions among those of several researchers to believe that there has been alteration when i watch the film.

You may recall a thread that I started on the direction of the frontal head shot, wherein I later deleted the main post and apologized for dragging readers through hypotheses gained by watching the headshot repeatedly and trying to gauge which part of the underpass JFK face was turned toward at the strike moment. That was a waste of a late night, and the conclusion I had next morning was that the rotoscopy and editing done on the head wound confused perception of the lateral placement of the shooter. So, yes, the amount of post-filming "action" I see in the common Z-film version has colored my logic in the case of your topic.

But I don't think I'm wrong. I do think, emphatically, that yours is a great line of inquiry, and I'm looking forward to seeing it develop with researchers' contributions. I'll follow these, and if I can add something that I feel is a contribution within the rubric, I will.

So David, you think you might be a subject of my thesis that the more you look at a photo or film the more anomalies you see?

And if your suspicions are correct, you don't know whether the Z filim was altered before or after the three copies were made?

As for Mooreman, did she misremember stepping into the street or when she stepped into the street, or did they fabricate the Z film in order to hide that fact and other aspects of conspiracy the film must have held before they altered it?

Or do we have yet another shellshocked, unstable witness (a cop of that era would probably say 'dizzy broad') who was one of the closest people to unexpectedly see the president get his head blown off?

If I have to chose between massive technical alteration of the film or dizzy broad, I'll go with the dizzy broad effect.

BK

I *believe* there is enough visible evidence of alteration, and that the viewer can see and perceptually sense some of the discontinuiies even before he reads others' postulations of individual incidents.

Hill and Moorman are not the only witnesses suggesting alteration. The testimony and reports on the head wounds by the Parkland doctors carry a lot of weight when compared to what we see, such as absence of back splatter, the too-quick vanishing of the front blood "halo," and the "flap" suggesting a front exit wound.

Jackie Kennedy's memories may be clouded by confusion and trauma, but I wouldn't call her descriptions of the wounds the reflections of a "dizzy broad." Her recollections contradict the commonly seen Z-film.

And what of that commonly seen film? We didn't commonly see it until the mid-1970s. We don't know what the Warren Commission saw, or what versions were available to other researchers, and shown to other observers, before the Z-film hit network TV. I can only attest that I saw Mark Lane host a presentation at Niagara University c. 1974, and that the print his researcher showed and lectured on was not different from the one that we all came to know from TV in that decade. I can postulate that this was the only version Lane ever saw, or that he accepted this version as accurate, but would I be right? The Z-film might have existed in other versions for other audiences and other occasions, including the occasion of the WC investigation.

I *know,* however, that you came up with a very useful logical approach that many here can contribute to. (Please read my final edit of the post you quote.) Your other posts and responses in this thread have been useful amplifications. Please don't distract yourself with me until I post something that can do similar good work within the rubric you've created.

I bring up my own deleted thread to show how alterations obscure understanding of direction and trajectory - and can color understanding of other useful approaches to the film. Mea culpa. I'm not that benighted every day, so don't write a thesis on me till I'm dead. Better to be written off temporarily than continue as a sideshow.

We're all trying to contribute useful work here, and we can do that best by following the narrow logical field of your proposition, which quite properly stands apart from alteration questions. Let's apply ourselves to that apartness. I'm all for dropping alteration from this thread for the sake of logical purity.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This response from Bill Kelly is quite bizarre. Bernice is quoting from a report by Doug Horne,

who would become the senior military analysis for the Assassination Records Review Board, of

an interview he did with Homer McMahon, who testified that he had been bought a copy of a film

--he doesn't call it "the Zapruder", since he did not know its origin, and indeed its contents do not

correspond to the present film, which is why his report is significant--that he observed six to eight

impacts from at least three directions. This is extremely important, since the present film does

not show anything like "six to eight impacts from at least three directions", yet the studies of the

medical evidence, especially by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., published in MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000) along with Doug Horne's report about Homer McMahon and the conduct of (what

turned out to be) two supplemental autopsies, one with the real, one with a substitute, brain,

are some of our most important evidence that impugns the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

Since his work on the supplemental autopsies complements the conclusions of Robert Livingston,

M.D., a world authority on the human brain, that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs

at the National Archives cannot possibly be the brain of JFK, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998),

I am worried that Kelly is not up to speed on the medical evidence. He also appears to be out of

his depth on the Zapuder, since the four shots to JFK--one to his throat (from in front), one to his

back (from behind), and two to the head (one from behind and one from in front)--and as many

as three to John Connally (from the side) add up to a number between six and eight from at least

three directions. If Kelly is going to disregard what we know from sources like these, where Bob

Livingston was a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, and David

Mantik is both a Ph.D. in physics and an M.D., who is board certified in radiation oncology and

makes profession decisions affecting life and death on the basis of his interpretations of X-rays,

then we are not going to be able to make any progress at all in understanding what happened.

This Kelly business reminds me of an exchange with John P. Costella, Ph.D. in physics with a

specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and the physics of moving objects,

which resolves the question of why the conflict with the Moorman has been so sensitive to the

gang attempting to quash progress in understanding the case. The Zapruder shows a massive

blow out to the right front, which is inconsistent with the medical evidence, as I summarize it

below, because JFK's brains were blown out to the BACK AND LEFT, not to the RIGHT FRONT.

Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects who received the Academy Award for his lifetime

contributions in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the brains and gore

had been painted in. So what we see in the film is a false depiction of the true causes of the

death of JFK. I don't know exactly what games Kelly is playing here, but grasping the reasons

for fabricating the film is not rocket science. And his dismissal of the exceptional research of

Doug Horne is mind-boggling! If you want to solve the case, you must ignore William Kelly.

Here, however, is where John Costella's post to me make such a difference in understanding

why the Moorman issue has been so protracted and so contentious. Barb's fall back seems

to be that the Newmans saw JFK's brains and blood on the side of his head, which is probably

true. The frangilble bullet that entered his right temple appears to have also caused a flap of

skull to crack open and to have damaged his ear. But seeing brains and blood is not the same

thing as seeing his brains bulge out to the right front, which the medical studies in MURDER by

David Mantik and also by Gary Aguilar address. Indeed, when Tink posted his first hatchet-job

review of MURDER on amazon.com, he complimented the author of only one chapter, namely:

Gary Aguilar. But that was a thoughtless act on is part, because Aguilar's chapter is devoted

to establishing the consistency of the observations of the wound to his head at Parkland and

at Bethesda, where he produces powerful proof that they were consistent descriptions of the

massive opening at the back of the head that McClelland and Crenshaw had drawn, which

Mantik had confirmed, and which can even be seen in late frames of the film, such as 374.

Which is no doubt why he returned to his review and removed the sentence about Aguilar.

What John noticed, however, is that Barb's attempt to suggest that brains and gore actually

did bulge out to the right front as the Newmans purportedly observed--when it was actually

coming out the back of his head--would require that JFK's head be turned dramatically to the

left (that is, his face be turned sharply toward his left shoulder). Then the claim could be

made that the Newmans saw brains and gore blown out of the back of his head, WHICH IN

THE ZAPRUDER LOOKS LIKE IT IS BEING BLOWN OUT TO THE RIGHT FRONT! That is quite

a stretch for those of us who understand the evidence, but in a situation like this, it is not

surprising to see those who want to defend Zapruder authenticity to grasp after straws. in

this context, therefore, John's observation that the Moorman contradicts that explanation

and exposes it as a sham, because JFK's head is not shown dramatically turned to the left,

which means that the blow out of brains and gore to the right front cannot be attributed to

his having turned his head to the left, which means the authenticity of the film has indeed

been impeached by the medical evidence! And this refutation of the film appears definitive!

________________

All,

I found some of Barb's observations so extraordinary that I sent the below

post to several of those with whom I collaborate to make sure that there

wasn't something here I was missing. The passages that puzzled me include:

> You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...

> which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping

> wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said

> they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back

> of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,

> notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area

> of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his

> skull.

>

> The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred

> to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and

> the back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the

> camera.

This, of course, makes me wonder whether Barb has ever looked at frame

374, for example, where the blow-out is visible, reviewed John's studies

of the film, which I have highlighted many times now, or ever read HOAX.

I would place a considerable bet that she has never read HOAX, but since

it is so easy to look at frame 374 or watch John's studies of the film,

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

I don't know what to make of her position, in light of the quantity and

quality of the evidence arrayed against here. In any case, John sent me

an extremely interesting suggestion about a possible relationship between

Mary's photograph and Zapruder's film, which I wanted to share with you.

Jim

----- Forwarded message from jpcostella@hotmail.com -----

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:28:54 +1100

From: John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>

Jim,

I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position

it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled.

Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The

explanation I like best is David Lifton's in Best Evidence about the time they got hold

of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my

website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that

somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are

seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself

dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316,

and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required -- and as

you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318

but does not rotate left or right.

Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal

for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315

or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant

of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in

the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had

been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman --

but we don't.

John

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

David and David, Jack and John,

I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the

medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,

is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-

front side of the head? You can even see it in frame 374 of the film itself.

Here is my basic argument, which I have been advancing for quite a while now:

Tink adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting

Mary's testimony and the alleged consistency of all of the films and

photographs, when their consistency is not enough to establish their

authenticity. That would dictate, for example, discounting the

massive and detailed proof that the Zapruder is a recreation! He

talked as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink’s

greatest nightmare. It was as though Tink hadn’t read "New Proof of

JFK Film Fakery" presenting John's latest proof, much less THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. None of what I have said here even reaches

to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the

right-front in the Zapruder film, ( the missing right-front in the

anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE

magazine with a caption saying that the right-front of his head had

been blown out (which was rewritten twice after twice breaking the

plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he

described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview on

television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Jackie

herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even

the mortician! It's not just that Tink’s little boat has sprung a

leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

Jim

----- Forwarded message from barbjfk@comcast.net -----

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:25:04 +0000 (UTC)

From: Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@comcast.net>

You are preaching to the choir. I presented and exhibition ...

complete with gurney from a local hospital, JFK and Parkland personnel

stand-ins and a tasteful rubber wound made to the avg dimension

described at Parkland ... to show everyone there is NO doubt that with

JFK laying on his back on a gurney in TR1, the Parkland doctors could

without a doubt, see exactly what they said they saw ... and where

they saw it.

You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...

which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping

wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said

they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back

of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,

notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area

of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his

skull.

The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred

to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and

the back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the

camera.

Think before you leap ... and you can't really think about anything in

this arena, let alone promote leaps of fancy, until you know and

understand the evidence.

Bill you may find this information from Doug Horne interesting...

B..

The following excerpts are taken from three enclosures in ARRB Document

D-133, which was prepared by Doug Horne. Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97

Date: 07/14/97

Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon

. . .

Mr. McMahon was manager of the NPIC (National Photo Interpretation

Center) color lab in 1963. About two days after the assassination of

President Kennedy, but before the funeral took place, a Secret Service

agent named "Bill Smith" delivered an amateur film of the assassination

to NPIC and requested that color prints be mde of frames believed to be

associated with wounding ("frames in which shots occurred"), for purpos-

es of assembling a briefing board. Mr. Smith did not explain who the

briefing boards would be for, or who would be briefed. The only persons

who witnessed this activity (which McMahon described as "an all night

job") were USSS agent Smith, Homer McMahon, and Ben Hunter (McMahon's

assistant). Although no materials produced were stamped with classifi-

cations markings, Smith told McMahon that the subject matter was to be

treated as "above top secret"; McMahon said not even his supervisor was

allowed to know what he was working on, nor was his supervisor allowed

to participate. Smith told McMahon that the had personally picked up

the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it) in

Dallas, flown it to Rochester, N.Y. (where it was developed by Kodak),

and then flown it down to NPIC in Washington so that enlargements of

selected frames could be made on NPIC's state-of-the-art equipment.

After the film (either an unslit original or possibly a duplicate)

was viewed more than once on a 16 mm projector in a briefing room at

NPIC, the original (a double-8 mm unslit original) was placed in a 10x

20x40 precison enlarger, and 5" X 7" format internegatives were made

from selected frames. A full-immersion "wet-gate" or liquid gate pro-

cess was used on the original film to reduce refractivity of the film

and maximize the optical quality of the internegatives. Subsequently,

three each 5" X 7" contact prints were made from the internegative. He

recalled that a mimimum of 20, and a maximum of 40 frames were duplicat-

ed via internegatives and prints. All prints, internegatives, and scraps

were turned over to Bill Smith at the conclusion of the work.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 08/14/97

Date: 08/14/97

Topic: Processing of Zapruder Film by NPIC in 1963 (Revised August 15,

1997)

. . .

I asked both men [Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter] if they still recall-

ed that their event occurred prior to the President's funeral, and they

both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed

their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and

Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the sec-

ond night after the assassination (i.e., Saturday night).

. . .

Home McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated

definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester,

and that copies of it were made in Rochester also, and that he personal-

ly watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night

prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed

that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture

film would "probably have been made in Rochester", but did not independ-

ently recall.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 06/18/97

Date: 06/17/97

Topic: ARRB Staff Interviewed Ben Hunter (Grammatical Edits Made on

June 19, 1997)(Final Edit Made June 20, 1997)

. . .

-The Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture; in fact, Hun-

ter said that NPIC did not have that capability for color movies, since

they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for

the most part. He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., loc-

ate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, includ-

ing "studying frames leading up to shots", and then produce color prints

from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots

impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on

a light table and using a loupe to examine individual frames. He does not

recall whether they received any instructions as to number of shots, or

any guidance as to where to look in the film.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97

Date: 07/14/97

Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon

. . .

Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur-

rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was

a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President

Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-

timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were

3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in

selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said

"you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to

produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said

that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed

the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.

. . .

END

Thanks B.

Horne's work on the autopsy photos and x-ray positively make them unsuitable as evidence, as not only is the provenance undetermined or broken, those who took the photos and x-rays can't identify them. Therefore, a court would order new photos and x-rays taken and a proper forensic autopsy performed in order to develop new evidence for the court to consider.

We can't do that with the Z-film. It is either legit or not legit.

If not legit, then who altered it, when did they do it and why?

BK

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only attest that I saw Mark Lane host a presentation at Niagara University c. 1974, and that the print his researcher showed and lectured on was not different from the one that we all came to know from TV in that decade. I can postulate that this was the only version Lane ever saw, or that he accepted this version as accurate, but would I be right?

Intelligent question, to which the answer is demonstrably no:

From Mark Lane’s original article on the case, “Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald,” published by the National Guardian, 19 December 1963:

”A motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat, was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show show exactly the same situation.”

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html

As I've pointed out before, this was not an isolated instance of Lane "tweaking" the evidence, not least of his own work.

Mark Lane and the “quiet transformation” of evidence

The strange case of the vanishing sentence (and left turn)

If all else failed, the Warren Commissioners could rely on an eminent critic to help them perpetuate the cover up!

In Mark Lane’s Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane Replies (Fawcett Crest, April 1969), he resurrects a line from Hugh Trevor-Roper’s verdict on the efforts of the Warren Commission (1), as to be found in the British historian’s Introduction to Lane’s own Rush To Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (2).

“It is fascinating, for instance, to watch the quiet transformation of the medical evidence,”

No less fascinating, I can’t help feeling, is the handling of the Zapruder film in the works of Mark Lane. Not so much “quiet” as stealthy:

1) Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964).”

So far, then, so clear: Zapruder filmed the turn from Houston onto Elm, precisely as attested by the former on November 22, 1963. Now, two years on, look what happens to the left turn at Lane’s hands: A source is conveniently truncated!

2) Mark Lane’s Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane Replies (Fawcett Crest, April 1969), p. 244:

“The frames of the Zapruder film were numbered, as the Report noted, “with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street.” (44)

(44) p.307: WCR98

Notes:

(1) Mark Lane’s Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane Replies (Fawcett Crest, April 1969), p.91 n9, detailed on p.293: “RTJ, 12.”

(2) Rush To Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.12.

The Z-film might have existed in other versions for other audiences and other occasions, including the occasion of the WC investigation.

The first version of the Z-fraud was shown on US TV on the evening/early morning of November 25/26. It included the left turn from Houston onto Elm; the first impact to Kennedy was not obscured by a street sign; and the wound to Connolly's chest was clearly visible.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This response from Bill Kelly is quite bizarre. Bernice is quoting from a report by Doug Horne, who would become the senior military analysis for the Assassination Records Review Board, of an interview he did with Homer McMahon, who testified that he had been bought a copy of a film --he doesn't call it "the Zapruder", since he did not know its origin, and indeed its contents do not correspond to the present film, which is why his report is significant--that he observed six to eight impacts from at least three directions. This is extremely important, since the present film does not show anything like "six to eight impacts from at least three directions",...........along with Doug Horne's report about Homer McMahon and the conduct of (what turned out to be) two supplemental autopsies, one with the real, one with a substitute, brain, are some of our most important evidence that impugns the authenticity of the Zapruder film.....

BK: How is my response bizarre? I accept Doug Horne's reports and look forward to reading his book, which I except should result in a court ordering a proper forensic autopsy since all of the photos and x-rays and reports are contradictory and inadmissible.

Since McMahon is not talking about the Z -film what relevance does his statements have on whether the Z film has been altered or not?

Since his work on the supplemental autopsies complements the conclusions of Robert Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain,...

Wait a minute, is this the same Dr. Livingston who goes mountain climbing with McNamara? The same Dr. Livingston suspected of being associated with Lt. Commander Narut (USN) who trained assassins?

...I am worried that Kelly is not up to speed on the medical evidence.

Don't worry any more. I'm not up to speed on the medical evidence, nor will I ever be. I will leave that to Dr. Wecht, Dr. Agulair, Doug Horne and those who have studied it and understand it.

He also appears to be out of his depth on the Zapuder,

Nor do I care to become an authority on the photo evidence or Z film.

I just want to know if it is authentic enough to pass muster as hard evidence in a court of law, or if it is altered, and if altered, when was it done, who did it and why?

since the four shots to JFK--one to his throat (from in front), one to his back (from behind), and two to the head (one from behind and one from in front)--and as many as three to John Connally (from the side) add up to a number between six and eight from at least three directions. If Kelly is going to disregard what we know from sources like these, where Bob Livingston was a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics....then we are not going to be able to make any progress at all in understanding what happened....

I'm not interested in what you know from your sources. I think that in order to make any further, meaningful progress in this case, to understand what really happened, it is necessary to get additional witness testimony on record, under oath, either in Congress or a grand jury. Towards that end I am refining what constitutes the evidence that could convince a Congressional committee chairman or a DA to subpoena those witnesses and ask those questions.

This Kelly business reminds me of an exchange with John P. Costella, Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and the physics of moving objects, which resolves the question of why the conflict with the Moorman has been so sensitive to the gang attempting to quash progress in understanding the case. The Zapruder shows a massive blow out to the right front, which is inconsistent with the medical evidence, ..... So what we see in the film is a false depiction of the true causes of the death of JFK. I don't know exactly what games Kelly is playing here, but grasping the reasons for fabricating the film is not rocket science. And his dismissal of the exceptional research of Doug Horne is mind-boggling! If you want to solve the case, you must ignore William Kelly......

I most certainly haven't dismissed the exceptional work of Doug Horne. I have known Doug Horne since before he began work for the ARRB, and asked John Judge's advice on getting a job with them. Doug Horne should be one of the first witnesses to take the stand, either at a Congerss hearing regarding the destroyed, missing and withheld records, or before a grand jury. Your embrace of his work certainly doesn't discredit him.

"...So what we see in the film is a false depiciton of the true casues of the death of JFK...."

But you can't tell me when the film was altered?

Jack White says that you detail the povenance of the Z film in your book. Can you give us a synopsis here? Thanks,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

David and David, Jack and John,

I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the

medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,

is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-

front side of the head?

<

<

Assuming that I'm one of the Davids cited, I believe you are right within the strict limits of the question quoted. The "flap" is inconsistent with the Parkland staff's testimonies. It is, though, consistent with disputed autopsy photos, and thus discrepancy makes it suspect.

While the right rear of JFK's head is not exactly "mugging for the camera," as someone put it above, it is the part of JFK's head that, in the angling away of his face, is angled toward the camera. One would expect to see more than a lumpen "shadow" there, and also that the reported backspray onto the trunk and the motorcycle cop would be represented by more than a few of JFK's cowlick hairs out of place. Those few hairs that some researchers point to, however, do bolster medical testimony that the back of the head was "sprung open," with the rear skull in pieces under the hinging top rear scalp, as some readings of the available X-rays state.

This may confuse the issue, or my reputation here, in several ways, but... Once while watching the stabilized Z-film on Youtube (I have also seen Z projected and on DVD), I paused the film to study the shadow on the right rear head. I decided that the image was best studied in other media, and clicked to exit and start a different clip. In the moment of darkness between clips in the small Youtube frame, I briefly saw an afterimage of the small shadow as a blotch on the screen just before the next clip started. I was not staring at the screen at this time - I had sat back briefly to sip my coffee between films. I'm wondering if some interface effect between the electronics and the eye produces an afterimage of an addition to the original image of the head. I'm wondering, too, if this effect can be repeated under technical study of the image on film or in digitization.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only attest that I saw Mark Lane host a presentation at Niagara University c. 1974, and that the print his researcher showed and lectured on was not different from the one that we all came to know from TV in that decade. I can postulate that this was the only version Lane ever saw, or that he accepted this version as accurate, but would I be right?

Intelligent question, to which the answer is demonstrably no:

From Mark Lane’s original article on the case, “Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald,” published by the National Guardian, 19 December 1963:

”A motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat, was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show show exactly the same situation.”

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html

As I've pointed out before, this was not an isolated instance of Lane "tweaking" the evidence, not least of his own work.

Mark Lane and the “quiet transformation” of evidence

Paul

Lane was not exactly unaware of the related issues of Life's role and the general issue of photographic alteration/forgery. Here he is in a late 1966 interview:

“Playboy Interview: Mark Lane,” Vol 14, No 2, (February 1967), p.64:

Playboy:

What proof do you have for the charge in your book that the famous Life cover photograph of Oswald holding the alleged murder weapon may have been forged?

Lane:

This photograph was the single document most responsible for persuading Americans that Oswald was involved in the assassination….

In other words, Lane effectively invited us to believe that while Life was involved in shenanigans with regard to the backyard photos, it was essentially to be trusted with regard to the same organisation's handling of the Z fake. A remarkable position, no less contorted - and implausible - than that offered in the fabricated image of LHO in the backyard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

HOW THE MOORMAN INDIRECTLY IMPEACHES THE ZAPRUDER FILM

David, Thanks for your affirmation that the medical evidence does indeed

contradict the authenticity of the Zapruder film, where the Moorman photo

refutes the fallback that has been advanced to explain how brains blown

out the back of his head could appear on the film to be blown out to the

right front! You were not one of the "David"s I had in mind, who were in

fact David Mantik and David Lifton (along with Jack White and John P.

Costella), but I am glad you agree with me about this crucial question.

Indeed, in my view, it settles the matter decisively, which appears to be

why there will be a sustained effort to distract from these key findings.

Replying to you also offers the opportunity to present an expanded post.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry

about answers". - Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW (1973).

Earlier on this very thread on this forum, I noticed a response from Bill

Kelly to a post by Bernice Moore that struck me as quite bizarre. Bernice

was quoting from a report by Doug Horne, who would become the senior military

analysis for the Assassination Records Review Board, of an interview he did

with Homer McMahon, who was in charge of the color-photo lab at the NPIC in

Washington, D.C. McMahon testified that he had been bought a copy of a film

--he doesn't call it "the Zapruder", since he did not know its origin, and,

indeed, its contents do not correspond to the present film, which is why his

report is significant--that he had observed six to eight impacts from at least

three directions. This is eyewitness testimony reporting what he witnessed

when he watched this film, which he said he had watched at least ten times.

This is extremely important, since the present film does not show anything

like "six to eight impacts from at least three directions", yet the studies

of the medical evidence, especially by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., which

were published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) along with Doug Horne's

report about Homer McMahon and the conduct of (what turned out to be)

two supplemental autopsies, one with the real, one with a substitute, brain,

are some of our most important evidence that impugns the authenticity of

the Zapruder film. Since his work on the supplemental autopsies complements

the conclusions of Robert Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human

brain, that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National

Archives cannot possibly be the brain of JFK, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE

(1998), I am worried that Kelly is not up to speed on the medical evidence.

He also appears to be out of his depth on the Zapuder, since the four shots

to JFK--one to his throat (from in front), one to his back (from behind),

and two to the head (one from behind and one from in front)--and as many

as three to John Connally (from the side) add up to a number between six

and eight from at least three directions. If Kelly is going to disregard

what we know from sources like these, where Robert Livingston was a world

authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, and David

Mantik is both a Ph.D. in physics and an M.D., who is board certified in

radiation oncology and makes profession decisions affecting life and death

on the basis of his interpretations of X-rays, then we are not going to be

able to make any progress at all in understanding what happened to JFK in

Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963! The reason for fabricating the film,

of course, was to conceal the true causes of the death of John F. Kennedy.

This Kelly business reminded me of my latest exchange with John P. Costella,

Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties

of light and the physics of moving objects, which resolves the question of

why the conflict with the Moorman has been so sensitive to the gang in its

attempts to quash progress in understanding the case. The Zapruder shows

a massive blow out to the right front, which is inconsistent with the medical

evidence, as I summarize it below, because JFK's brains were blown out to

the BACK AND LEFT, not to the RIGHT FRONT. Roderick Ryan, an expert on

special effects who received the Academy Award for lifetime contributions

in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the brains and gore

had been painted in. So what we see in the film is a false depiction of the true

causes of the death of JFK. I don't know exactly what games Kelly is

playing here, but grasping the reasons for fabricating the film is not rocket

science. And his dismissal of the exceptional research of Doug Horn boggles

the mind! If you want to solve the case, you must ignore William Kelly.

Here, however, is where John Costella's post to me makes such a difference

in understanding why the Moorman issue has been so protracted and so contentious.

Barb's fallback seems to be that the Newmans saw JFK's brains and blood on the

side of his head, which is probably true. The frangible bullet that entered

his right temple appears to have also caused a flap of skull to crack open

and to have damaged his ear. But seeing brains and blood is not the same

thing as seeing his brains bulge out to the right front, which the medical

studies in MURDER by David Mantik and also by Gary Aguilar address. Indeed,

when Tink posted his first hatchet-job review of MURDER on amazon.com, he

complimented the author of only one chapter, namely: Gary Aguilar. But that

was a thoughtless act on is part, because Aguilar's chapter is devoted to

establishing the consistency of the observations of the wound to his head at

Parkland and at Bethesda, where he produces powerful proof that they were

consistent descriptions of the massive opening at the back of the head that

McClelland and Crenshaw had drawn, which Mantik had confirmed, and which can

even be seen in late frames of the film, such as 374. Which is no doubt why

he later returned to his review and removed the sentence about Aguilar.

What John noticed, however, is that Barb's attempt to suggest that brains and

gore actually did bulge out to the right front of his location in the limo,

as the Newmans purportedly observed--when it was actually coming out the back

of his head--would require that JFK's head be turned dramatically to the left

(that is, his face be turned sharply toward his left shoulder). Then the

claim could be made that the Newmans saw brains and gore blown out that was

coming from the back of his head, WHICH IN THE ZAPRUDER LOOKS LIKE IT IS BEING

BLOWN OUT TO THE RIGHT FRONT! That is quite a stretch for those of us who

understand the evidence, but in a situation like this, it is not surprising

to see those who want to defend Zapruder authenticity, including Tink, Miller,

Lamson, Barb, and even Shackelford, among others, to grasp after straws.

In this context, therefore, John's observation that the Moorman contradicts

that explanation and exposes it as a sham, because JFK's head is NOT shown

dramatically turned to the left, which means that the blow out of brains and

gore to the right front cannot be attributed to his having turned his head to

the left, which means the authenticity of the film has indeed been impeached

by the medical evidence! And this refutation of the film appears definitive!

Which, I now believe, is why Josiah has been so insistent on drawing attention

to distant background features of the film. If Jack and I are right about the

film having been taken from the street--and after all of the testimony from

Mary and from Jean, it is beyond any doubt!--then of course the photo DIRECTLY

impeaches the Zapruder. But that issue hinges on subtle and complex issues,

where he has tried to create enough smoke to make it appear to be uncertain,

while the far more powerful INDIRECT proof based on the medical evidence lies

dormant. I therefore believe he has concocted this charade for more than one

purpose, both to defeat the direct proof but lead us away from the indirect.

We appear to have succeeded in exposing twin hoaxes, Zapruder's and Tink's!

And, of course, the answer to the question is that Zapruder did not take "the

Zapruder film" because NO BODY "takes" a fake film. It was concocted from

various ingredients using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and

special effects as a fabrication that no one , including Zapruder, actually took.

________________

All,

I found some of Barb's observations so extraordinary that I sent the below

post to several of those with whom I collaborate to make sure that there

wasn't something here I was missing. The passages that puzzled me include:

> You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...

> which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping

> wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said

> they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back

> of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,

> notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area

> of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his

> skull.

>

> The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred

> to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and the

> back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the camera.

This, of course, makes me wonder whether Barb has ever looked at frame

374, for example, where the blow-out is visible, reviewed John's studies

of the film, which I have highlighted many times now, or ever read HOAX.

I would place a considerable bet that she has never read HOAX, but since

it is so easy to look at frame 374 or watch John's studies of the film,

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

I don't know what to make of her position, in light of the quantity and

quality of the evidence arrayed against here. In any case, John sent me

an extremely interesting suggestion about a possible relationship between

Mary's photograph and Zapruder's film, which I wanted to share with you.

Jim

----- Forwarded message from jpcostella@hotmail.com -----

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:28:54 +1100

From: John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>

Jim,

I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position

it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled.

Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The

explanation I like best is David Lifton's in Best Evidence about the time they got hold

of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my

website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that

somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are

seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself

dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316,

and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required -- and as

you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318

but does not rotate left or right.

Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal

for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315

or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant

of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in

the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had

been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman --

but we don't.

John

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

David and David, Jack and John,

I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the

medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,

is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-

front side of the head? You can even see it in frame 374 of the film itself.

Here is my basic argument, which I have been advancing for quite a while now:

Tink adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting

Mary's testimony and the alleged consistency of all of the films and

photographs, when their consistency is not enough to establish their

authenticity. That would dictate, for example, discounting the

massive and detailed proof that the Zapruder is a recreation! He

talked as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink?s

greatest nightmare. It was as though Tink hadn?t read "New Proof of

JFK Film Fakery" presenting John's latest proof, much less THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. None of what I have said here even reaches

to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the

right-front in the Zapruder film, ( the missing right-front in the

anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE

magazine with a caption saying that the right-front of his head had

been blown out (which was rewritten twice after twice breaking the

plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he

described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview on

television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Jackie

herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even

the mortician! It's not just that Tink?s little boat has sprung a

leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

Jim

----- Forwarded message from barbjfk@comcast.net -----

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:25:04 +0000 (UTC)

From: Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@comcast.net>

You are preaching to the choir. I presented and exhibition ...

complete with gurney from a local hospital, JFK and Parkland personnel

stand-ins and a tasteful rubber wound made to the avg dimension

described at Parkland ... to show everyone there is NO doubt that with

JFK laying on his back on a gurney in TR1, the Parkland doctors could

without a doubt, see exactly what they said they saw ... and where

they saw it.

You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...

which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping

wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said

they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back

of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,

notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area

of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his skull.

The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred

to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and

the back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the

camera.

Think before you leap ... and you can't really think about anything in

this arena, let alone promote leaps of fancy, until you know and

understand the evidence.

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

David and David, Jack and John,

I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the

medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,

is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-

front side of the head?

<

<

Assuming that I'm one of the Davids cited, I believe you are right within the strict limits of the question quoted. The "flap" is inconsistent with the Parkland staff's testimonies. It is, though, consistent with disputed autopsy photos, and thus discrepancy makes it suspect.

While the right rear of JFK's head is not exactly "mugging for the camera," as someone put it above, it is the part of JFK's head that, in the angling away of his face, is angled toward the camera. One would expect to see more than a lumpen "shadow" there, and also that the reported backspray onto the trunk and the motorcycle cop would be represented by more than a few of JFK's cowlick hairs out of place. Those few hairs that some researchers point to, however, do bolster medical testimony that the back of the head was "sprung open," with the rear skull in pieces under the hinging top rear scalp, as some readings of the available X-rays state.

This may confuse the issue, or my reputation here, in several ways, but... Once while watching the stabilized Z-film on Youtube (I have also seen Z projected and on DVD), I paused the film to study the shadow on the right rear head. I decided that the image was best studied in other media, and clicked to exit and start a different clip. In the moment of darkness between clips in the small Youtube frame, I briefly saw an afterimage of the small shadow as a blotch on the screen just before the next clip started. I was not staring at the screen at this time - I had sat back briefly to sip my coffee between films. I'm wondering if some interface effect between the electronics and the eye produces an afterimage of an addition to the original image of the head. I'm wondering, too, if this effect can be repeated under technical study of the image on film or in digitization.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

David and David, Jack and John,

I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the

medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,

is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-

front side of the head?

<

<

Assuming that I'm one of the Davids cited, I believe you are right within the strict limits of the question quoted. The "flap" is inconsistent with the Parkland staff's testimonies. It is, though, consistent with disputed autopsy photos, and thus discrepancy makes it suspect.

While the right rear of JFK's head is not exactly "mugging for the camera," as someone put it above, it is the part of JFK's head that, in the angling away of his face, is angled toward the camera. One would expect to see more than a lumpen "shadow" there, and also that the reported backspray onto the trunk and the motorcycle cop would be represented by more than a few of JFK's cowlick hairs out of place. Those few hairs that some researchers point to, however, do bolster medical testimony that the back of the head was "sprung open," with the rear skull in pieces under the hinging top rear scalp, as some readings of the available X-rays state.

This may confuse the issue, or my reputation here, in several ways, but... Once while watching the stabilized Z-film on Youtube (I have also seen Z projected and on DVD), I paused the film to study the shadow on the right rear head. I decided that the image was best studied in other media, and clicked to exit and start a different clip. In the moment of darkness between clips in the small Youtube frame, I briefly saw an afterimage of the small shadow as a blotch on the screen just before the next clip started. I was not staring at the screen at this time - I had sat back briefly to sip my coffee between films. I'm wondering if some interface effect between the electronics and the eye produces an afterimage of an addition to the original image of the head. I'm wondering, too, if this effect can be repeated under technical study of the image on film or in digitization.

The "Davids" quoted are David LIFTON and David MANTIK.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Characteristically, Professor Fetzer only tells part of the story with respect to Homer McMahon and NPIC.

McMahon worked with Ben Hunter on the film for NPIC. Horne's meeting reports on interviewing both sequentially shows up numerous discrepancies between the stories told by McMahon and Hunter. Consider this paragraph from the report on Hunter:

"His impression is that the film was probably in 16 mm format, but was not an unslit double-8mm film. It was his strong impression that they were working with the original, but when asked whether there were images present between the sprocket holes, he said that it was his reasonably strong impression today that there were no such images present between the sprocket holes in the film he examined at NPIC. At one point, he examined the film as "not high resolution."

If there were no images present between the sprocket holes, then the film viewed by Hunter was a copy... not the original that was retained by Zapruder in Dallas. We have a signed receipt (9:30 PM, 11/22/63) saying that a copy of the film obtained from Zapruder was sent by the Secret Service to Washington on the evening of the 22nd. It was flown there. In all likelihood, this copy is what Hunter is describing.

Josiah Thompson

HOW THE MOORMAN INDIRECTLY IMPEACHES THE ZAPRUDER FILM

David, Thanks for your affirmation that the medical evidence does indeed

contradict the authenticity of the Zapruder film, where the Moorman photo

refutes the fallback that has been advanced to explain how brains blown

out the back of his head could appear on the film to be blown out to the

right front! You were not one of the "David"s I had in mind, who were in

fact David Mantik and David Lifton (along with Jack White and John P.

Costella), but I am glad you agree with me about this crucial question.

Indeed, in my view, it settles the matter decisively, which appears to be

why there will be a sustained effort to distract from these key findings.

Replying to you also offers the opportunity to present an expanded post.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry

about answers". - Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW (1973).

Earlier on this very thread on this forum, I noticed a response from Bill

Kelly to a post by Bernice Moore that struck me as quite bizarre. Bernice

was quoting from a report by Doug Horne, who would become the senior military

analysis for the Assassination Records Review Board, of an interview he did

with Homer McMahon, who was in charge of the color-photo lab at the NPIC in

Washington, D.C. McMahon testified that he had been bought a copy of a film

--he doesn't call it "the Zapruder", since he did not know its origin, and,

indeed, its contents do not correspond to the present film, which is why his

report is significant--that he had observed six to eight impacts from at least

three directions. This is eyewitness testimony reporting what he witnessed

when he watched this film, which he said he had watched at least ten times.

This is extremely important, since the present film does not show anything

like "six to eight impacts from at least three directions", yet the studies

of the medical evidence, especially by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., which

were published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) along with Doug Horne's

report about Homer McMahon and the conduct of (what turned out to be)

two supplemental autopsies, one with the real, one with a substitute, brain,

are some of our most important evidence that impugns the authenticity of

the Zapruder film. Since his work on the supplemental autopsies complements

the conclusions of Robert Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human

brain, that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National

Archives cannot possibly be the brain of JFK, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE

(1998), I am worried that Kelly is not up to speed on the medical evidence.

He also appears to be out of his depth on the Zapuder, since the four shots

to JFK--one to his throat (from in front), one to his back (from behind),

and two to the head (one from behind and one from in front)--and as many

as three to John Connally (from the side) add up to a number between six

and eight from at least three directions. If Kelly is going to disregard

what we know from sources like these, where Robert Livingston was a world

authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, and David

Mantik is both a Ph.D. in physics and an M.D., who is board certified in

radiation oncology and makes profession decisions affecting life and death

on the basis of his interpretations of X-rays, then we are not going to be

able to make any progress at all in understanding what happened to JFK in

Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963!

This Kelly business reminded me of my latest exchange with John P. Costella,

Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties

of light and the physics of moving objects, which resolves the question of

why the conflict with the Moorman has been so sensitive to the gang in its

attempts to quash progress in understanding the case. The Zapruder shows

a massive blow out to the right front, which is inconsistent with the medical

evidence, as I summarize it below, because JFK's brains were blown out to

the BACK AND LEFT, not to the RIGHT FRONT. Roderick Ryan, an expert on

special effects who received the Academy Award for lifetime contributions

in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the brains and gore

had been painted in. So what we see in the film is a false depiction of the true

causes of the death of JFK. I don't know exactly what games Kelly is

playing here, but grasping the reasons for fabricating the film is not rocket

science. And his dismissal of the exceptional research of Doug Horn boggles

the mind! If you want to solve the case, you must ignore William Kelly.

Here, however, is where John Costella's post to me makes such a difference

in understanding why the Moorman issue has been so protracted and so contentious.

Barb's fallback seems to be that the Newmans saw JFK's brains and blood on the

side of his head, which is probably true. The frangible bullet that entered

his right temple appears to have also caused a flap of skull to crack open

and to have damaged his ear. But seeing brains and blood is not the same

thing as seeing his brains bulge out to the right front, which the medical

studies in MURDER by David Mantik and also by Gary Aguilar address. Indeed,

when Tink posted his first hatchet-job review of MURDER on amazon.com, he

complimented the author of only one chapter, namely: Gary Aguilar. But that

was a thoughtless act on is part, because Aguilar's chapter is devoted to

establishing the consistency of the observations of the wound to his head at

Parkland and at Bethesda, where he produces powerful proof that they were

consistent descriptions of the massive opening at the back of the head that

McClelland and Crenshaw had drawn, which Mantik had confirmed, and which can

even be seen in late frames of the film, such as 374. Which is no doubt why

he later returned to his review and removed the sentence about Aguilar.

What John noticed, however, is that Barb's attempt to suggest that brains and

gore actually did bulge out to the right front of his location in the limo,

as the Newmans purportedly observed--when it was actually coming out the back

of his head--would require that JFK's head be turned dramatically to the left

(that is, his face be turned sharply toward his left shoulder). Then the

claim could be made that the Newmans saw brains and gore blown out that was

coming from the back of his head, WHICH IN THE ZAPRUDER LOOKS LIKE IT IS BEING

BLOWN OUT TO THE RIGHT FRONT! That is quite a stretch for those of us who

understand the evidence, but in a situation like this, it is not surprising

to see those who want to defend Zapruder authenticity, including Tink, Miller,

Lamson, Barb, Shackelford and Kelly, among others, to grasp after straws.

In this context, therefore, John's observation that the Moorman contradicts

that explanation and exposes it as a sham, because JFK's head is NOT shown

dramatically turned to the left, which means that the blow out of brains and

gore to the right front cannot be attributed to his having turned his head to

the left, which means the authenticity of the film has indeed been impeached

by the medical evidence! And this refutation of the film appears definitive!

Which, I now believe, is why Josiah has been so insistent on drawing attention

to distant background features of the film. If Jack and I are right about the

film having been taken from the street--and after all of the testimony from

Mary and from Jean, it is beyond any doubt!--then of course the film DIRECTLY

impeaches the Zapruder. But that issue hinges on subtle and complex issues,

where he has tried to create enough smoke to make it appear to be uncertain,

while the far more powerful INDIRECT proof based on the medical evidence lies

dormant. I therefore believe he has concocted this charade for more than one

purpose, both to defeat the direct proof but lead us away from the indirect.

We appear to have succeeded in exposing twin hoaxes, Zapruder's and Tink's!

And, of course, the answer to the question is that Zapruder did not take "the

Zapruder film" because NO BODY takes a fake film. It was concocted from

various ingredients using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and

special effects as a fabrication that no one , including Zapruder, actually "took".

________________

All,

I found some of Barb's observations so extraordinary that I sent the below

post to several of those with whom I collaborate to make sure that there

wasn't something here I was missing. The passages that puzzled me include:

[Hide Quoted Text]

You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...

which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping

wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said

they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back

of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,

notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area

of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his

skull.

The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred

to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and the

back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the camera.

This, of course, makes me wonder whether Barb has ever looked at frame

374, for example, where the blow-out is visible, reviewed John's studies

of the film, which I have highlighted many times now, or ever read HOAX.

I would place a considerable bet that she has never read HOAX, but since

it is so easy to look at frame 374 or watch John's studies of the film,

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

I don't know what to make of her position, in light of the quantity and

quality of the evidence arrayed against here. In any case, John sent me

an extremely interesting suggestion about a possible relationship between

Mary's photograph and Zapruder's film, which I wanted to share with you.

Jim

----- Forwarded message from jpcostella@hotmail.com -----

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:28:54 +1100

From: John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>

Jim,

I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position

it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled.

Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The

explanation I like best is David Lifton's in Best Evidence about the time they got hold

of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my

website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that

somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are

seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself

dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316,

and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required -- and as

you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318

but does not rotate left or right.

Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal

for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315

or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant

of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in

the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had

been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman --

but we don't.

John

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

David and David, Jack and John,

I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the

medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,

is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-

front side of the head? You can even see it in frame 374 of the film itself.

Here is my basic argument, which I have been advancing for quite a while now:

Tink adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting

Mary's testimony and the alleged consistency of all of the films and

photographs, when their consistency is not enough to establish their

authenticity. That would dictate, for example, discounting the

massive and detailed proof that the Zapruder is a recreation! He

talked as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink?s

greatest nightmare. It was as though Tink hadn?t read "New Proof of

JFK Film Fakery" presenting John's latest proof, much less THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. None of what I have said here even reaches

to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the

right-front in the Zapruder film, ( the missing right-front in the

anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE

magazine with a caption saying that the right-front of his head had

been blown out (which was rewritten twice after twice breaking the

plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he

described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview on

television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Jackie

herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even

the mortician! It's not just that Tink?s little boat has sprung a

leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

Jim

----- Forwarded message from barbjfk@comcast.net -----

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:25:04 +0000 (UTC)

From: Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@comcast.net>

You are preaching to the choir. I presented and exhibition ...

complete with gurney from a local hospital, JFK and Parkland personnel

stand-ins and a tasteful rubber wound made to the avg dimension

described at Parkland ... to show everyone there is NO doubt that with

JFK laying on his back on a gurney in TR1, the Parkland doctors could

without a doubt, see exactly what they said they saw ... and where

they saw it.

You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...

which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping

wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said

they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back

of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,

notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area

of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his skull.

The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred

to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and

the back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the

camera.

Think before you leap ... and you can't really think about anything in

this arena, let alone promote leaps of fancy, until you know and

understand the evidence.

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

David and David, Jack and John,

I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the

medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,

is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-

front side of the head?

<

<

Assuming that I'm one of the Davids cited, I believe you are right within the strict limits of the question quoted. The "flap" is inconsistent with the Parkland staff's testimonies. It is, though, consistent with disputed autopsy photos, and thus discrepancy makes it suspect.

While the right rear of JFK's head is not exactly "mugging for the camera," as someone put it above, it is the part of JFK's head that, in the angling away of his face, is angled toward the camera. One would expect to see more than a lumpen "shadow" there, and also that the reported backspray onto the trunk and the motorcycle cop would be represented by more than a few of JFK's cowlick hairs out of place. Those few hairs that some researchers point to, however, do bolster medical testimony that the back of the head was "sprung open," with the rear skull in pieces under the hinging top rear scalp, as some readings of the available X-rays state.

This may confuse the issue, or my reputation here, in several ways, but... Once while watching the stabilized Z-film on Youtube (I have also seen Z projected and on DVD), I paused the film to study the shadow on the right rear head. I decided that the image was best studied in other media, and clicked to exit and start a different clip. In the moment of darkness between clips in the small Youtube frame, I briefly saw an afterimage of the small shadow as a blotch on the screen just before the next clip started. I was not staring at the screen at this time - I had sat back briefly to sip my coffee between films. I'm wondering if some interface effect between the electronics and the eye produces an afterimage of an addition to the original image of the head. I'm wondering, too, if this effect can be repeated under technical study of the image on film or in digitization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Bill,

This post of yours bothers me. Don't you understand that Homer had to have been looking at the original, unaltered film before

it was transformed into "the Zapruder film"? I am astonished you would dismiss his crucial testimony because it wasn't called

"the Zapruder film". Josiah Thompson, who is dedicating his career and reputation to obfuscating the evidence that the film

has been recreated, even appeals to remote memories of an associate about "sprocket images" the presence or absence of

which would have been trivial and unimportant in light of the content of the film that Homer McMahon was repeatedly viewing.

It is typical of Tompson to try to find some relatively obscure issue on which there may be differing recollections and try to

leverage it into a controversy about the content of what McMahon reported. This is a replay of his tinkering with the Moorman

and attempting to distract attention from its important content about the orientation of the president's head, with refutes the

claim that the blow-out to the right front was because his head was rotated dramatically to the left! Typical Tink poppycock!

What he was observing, which had been brought to him by a Secret Service agent from Rochester, was six to eight impacts.

You need to understand the mutually reinforcing deceptions of [a] the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, the

missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, [c] the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the

right-front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten twice after twice breaking the plates), and [d] Zapruder him-

self, who described a blow-out to the right-front of JFK's head during an interview on television that night (HOAX, page 435)!

None of it was true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that she had a hard time holding his

skull and brains together at the back of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Gary Aguilar's study of the

descrptions of the wounds at Parkland and at Bethesda contradicts it. Not even the mortician! Tink is like the little Dutch boy

who tried to stem a leak in a dike with his finger. There are too many holes; he has too few fingers; the dike has burst open!

Homer is not the only one who has observed such a film. William Reymond, a French investigative journalist, and Rich DellaRosa,

who moderates the JFKresearch.com forum, have both viewed it, Rich on three different occasions. You might want to visit his

forum or Black Op Radio, hosted by Len Osanic, a former assistant to Fletcher Prouty, to listen to his (and my) discussion of the

apparently unedited film, which is archived at http://blackopradio.com/archives2009.html. (The one you want is show #412.)

He also contributed an appendix about his observations of this film, which is published in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX.

I am glad--even relieved!--to learn that you accept Doug Horne's research on the supplemental autopsies on the brain, the first

on the original, the second on the subtitute. But I am troubled by your concerns about Bob Livingston, M.D., who was the most

distinguished American I have ever known personally. He was indeed a friend of Robert McNamara, but if you think that makes

him suspect, why--if he were trying to "cover up" the crime--would he announce conclusions that contradict the official account?

You seem to have an odd sense of "guilt by association", which appears to be independent of what the source is reporting to us.

Having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, your thought process appears to be confused. You do

not seem to appreciate that when persons associated with the government--and Bob was the Scientific Director of the NIH and

the National Institute for Neurological Diseases and Blindness--speak out against the government's official account, that gives

their testimony additional weight, because they are "making admissions against their own interest". And that goes double for

your implied association with someone more sinister. Why would he gut the official account if he wanted to cover up the crime?

When it comes to the medical evidence, Wecht, Aguilar, and Horne are all very well, but the leading expert in the world today on

the medical evidence is David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., whose studies of the autopsy X-rays in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998)

and whose brilliant synthesis of the medical evidence in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) may be the most important studies

in the history of the entire case. That you appear to be unfamiliar with his work and do not seem to have read either of these

books is beyond my comprehension. They will take you to a whole new level of understanding that is both higher and deeper.

As for the actual recreation of the film, which John Costella has documented so throughly in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX

(2003), please go to assassinationscience.com, and watch John's dissection of the video fakery of the Zapruder film, which is

archived at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ --because otherwise you simply don't know what you are

talking about. The history of the film is discussed at length in HOAX, where the most important reconstruction may have been

done at LIFE or in Hollywood (read Lifton's brilliant study of the film), but it was technically possible to do what was done here.

Your remarks about "legal admissibility" in dismissing McMahon's report, the significance of which you obviously did not under-

stand, and looking for unbroken "chains of custody" are imposing standards that are difficult to meet when the purpose of the

cover up was to break those chains and damage admissibility sufficiently that no one would ever pay a penalty for participating

in the assassination. The crucial question I have to address to you, given your limited background, is, Do you appreciate that

the extant film has to be a fabrication and understand, in general, why it had to be faked?" You need to do more homework.

This response from Bill Kelly is quite bizarre. Bernice is quoting from a report by Doug Horne, who would become the senior military analysis for the Assassination Records Review Board, of an interview he did with Homer McMahon, who testified that he had been bought a copy of a film --he doesn't call it "the Zapruder", since he did not know its origin, and indeed its contents do not correspond to the present film, which is why his report is significant--that he observed six to eight impacts from at least three directions. This is extremely important, since the present film does not show anything like "six to eight impacts from at least three directions",...........along with Doug Horne's report about Homer McMahon and the conduct of (what turned out to be) two supplemental autopsies, one with the real, one with a substitute, brain, are some of our most important evidence that impugns the authenticity of the Zapruder film.....

BK: How is my response bizarre? I accept Doug Horne's reports and look forward to reading his book, which I except should result in a court ordering a proper forensic autopsy since all of the photos and x-rays and reports are contradictory and inadmissible.

Since McMahon is not talking about the Z -film what relevance does his statements have on whether the Z film has been altered or not?

Since his work on the supplemental autopsies complements the conclusions of Robert Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain,...

Wait a minute, is this the same Dr. Livingston who goes mountain climbing with McNamara? The same Dr. Livingston suspected of being associated with Lt. Commander Narut (USN) who trained assassins?

...I am worried that Kelly is not up to speed on the medical evidence.

Don't worry any more. I'm not up to speed on the medical evidence, nor will I ever be. I will leave that to Dr. Wecht, Dr. Agulair, Doug Horne and those who have studied it and understand it.

He also appears to be out of his depth on the Zapuder,

Nor do I care to become an authority on the photo evidence or Z film.

I just want to know if it is authentic enough to pass muster as hard evidence in a court of law, or if it is altered, and if altered, when was it done, who did it and why?

since the four shots to JFK--one to his throat (from in front), one to his back (from behind), and two to the head (one from behind and one from in front)--and as many as three to John Connally (from the side) add up to a number between six and eight from at least three directions. If Kelly is going to disregard what we know from sources like these, where Bob Livingston was a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics....then we are not going to be able to make any progress at all in understanding what happened....

I'm not interested in what you know from your sources. I think that in order to make any further, meaningful progress in this case, to understand what really happened, it is necessary to get additional witness testimony on record, under oath, either in Congress or a grand jury. Towards that end I am refining what constitutes the evidence that could convince a Congressional committee chairman or a DA to subpoena those witnesses and ask those questions.

This Kelly business reminds me of an exchange with John P. Costella, Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and the physics of moving objects, which resolves the question of why the conflict with the Moorman has been so sensitive to the gang attempting to quash progress in understanding the case. The Zapruder shows a massive blow out to the right front, which is inconsistent with the medical evidence, ..... So what we see in the film is a false depiction of the true causes of the death of JFK. I don't know exactly what games Kelly is playing here, but grasping the reasons for fabricating the film is not rocket science. And his dismissal of the exceptional research of Doug Horne is mind-boggling! If you want to solve the case, you must ignore William Kelly......

I most certainly haven't dismissed the exceptional work of Doug Horne. I have known Doug Horne since before he began work for the ARRB, and asked John Judge's advice on getting a job with them. Doug Horne should be one of the first witnesses to take the stand, either at a Congerss hearing regarding the destroyed, missing and withheld records, or before a grand jury. Your embrace of his work certainly doesn't discredit him.

"...So what we see in the film is a false depiciton of the true casues of the death of JFK...."

But you can't tell me when the film was altered?

Jack White says that you detail the povenance of the Z film in your book. Can you give us a synopsis here? Thanks,

BK

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

]

As for the actual recreation of the film, which John Costella has documented so throughly in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX

(2003), please go to assassinationscience.com, and watch John's dissection of the video fakery of the Zapruder film, which is

archived at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ --because otherwise you simply don't know what you are

talking about. The history of the film is discussed extensively there, where the most important reconstruction may have been

done at LIFE or in Hollywood (read Lifton's brilliant study of the film), but it was technically possible to do what was done here.

Does this include the works by John Costella where he shows how a physist can totally screw up physics?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Costella's Folly

You need a better source, this guy is a joke.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...