Doug Horne

[Jack White]

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

Doug Horne replies to Gary Mack..b

Simply outstanding. Horne has done what decades before him have failed to

do...with the imprimatur of having been an INSIDER revealing the continuing

coverup. He is a person of great intelligence, and greater personal courage

and dedication to truth.

I eagerly await the revelations of the HOLLYWOOD GROUP, assuming they

are allowed to survive! I hope icepick assassins do not invade their homes.

Jack

[William Kelly]

merry christmas Especially for Bill Kelly, sent and with permission to post as well on Bill's site from David Lifton... his

''PIG ON A LEASH'' from TGZFH....His experiences with the Zapruder film...

he wished a merry christmas to all...P.S.Bernice,

Attached find the latest version of PIG ON A LEASH, which was published in the Fetzer anthology (2nd edition, I believe); 2003

b..

p.s he did not have any further time to spend on it..so he said there may be some spelling editing errors within..fine by moi...nothing serious have i found...so keepthat in mind we can live with them.....thanks again David...much appreciated... b..

Gee, B.,

I didn't know it was so easy to get what you want on Christmas.

I would have wished for world peace instead.

Thanks,

Just what I need, more reading material to digest.

And many thanks to David for all he's done,

And happy holidays to all, and looking forward to great JFK research in 2010.

Bill Kelly

[Craig Lamson]

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

Doug Horne replies to Gary Mack..b

Simply outstanding. Horne has done what decades before him have failed to

do...with the imprimatur of having been an INSIDER revealing the continuing

coverup. He is a person of great intelligence, and greater personal courage

and dedication to truth.

I eagerly await the revelations of the HOLLYWOOD GROUP, assuming they

are allowed to survive! I hope icepick assassins do not invade their homes.

Jack

Simply outstanding my asp! Once again Jack White shows his total inability to understand even the most simple of photographic principles...how film is exposed.

We can forgive Doug Horne for his ignorance in his claims of the blue scarf woman. It’s quite clear he is completely out of his depth.

He seems somewhat surprised that in the image blur area, edges of the dark sign are overwritten by the lighter blue scarf in the area of the blur. This is a rookie mistake.

The fact is this intrusion of the lighter area into the darker area is how the process MUST work. It can’t be any other way. Why? Because the dark sign in the blurred area produces MINIMAL exposure to the film. Remember, this is reversal film and black or dark is recorded as slight exposure to the film ABOVE the base exposure floor.

But what happens when an area of greater brightness (the blue scarf) is blurred into the blurred area of the sign? Only one thing can happen that fits the basic principles of photographic exposure...the lighter subject adds more exposure to the darker area. In this case the bright blue scarf added enough additional exposure to the dark blurred area of the sign that it was overwritten. This is the basic principle of photographic double exposure.

This stuff is photography 101. It’s quite disheartening that Horne would publish such incorrect material without first confirming he has a grasp of the basic processes involved. I applaud him for wanting to do empirical tests, but the time for testing is BEFORE publication and not after. Testing this basic photographic principle takes very little time. It is beyond the pale that Horne went to press with his suspicions without running even rudimentary testing. This clearly casts huge doubts on the rest of Horne's analysis.

In any case if his Hollywood brain trust is finding this suspicious we can discount them as a reliable source. Again this is photography 101, and perhaps these digital editors need to take a basic photography course. It's quite clear they are lacking a working knowledge of the principles of photography.

I suggest that everyone test this for themselves. Don't take my word for it or that of Horne and his advisors. You don't need a B&H, any camera will do. This is basic photographic principle, not some artifact known only to Zapruder’s camera.

All of which brings us back to the supposed photographic guru of the ct's...Jack White.

While we can forgive Horne his ignorance and discard the film editors because of their lack of basic photographic knowledge, White gets no such breaks. Once again he has proven he completely lacks the skill set required to comment on things photographic.

Below is a very quick test to illustrate the principle I have outlined above. Notice how the blue DVD case intrudes into the dark backside of a mouse pad exactly like the blue scarf head intrudes into the dark sign in Zapruder.

There is no anomaly in the Zapruder film as stated by Horne. There is only ignorance. Horne needs to offer his readers and Gary Mack an apology for his rookie mistake.

BTW, the the simple proof of concept empirical testing was done with simple props and a cheap Digital Rebel camera. Note that the exposure principle that so baffles Doug Horne (showing without doubt that the photography in the JFK case is simply beyond his ability) works with any camera...film or digital.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[John Bevilaqua]

Simply outstanding my asp! Once again Jack White shows his total inability to understand even the most simply of photographic principles...how film is exposed.

We can forgive Doug Horne for his ignorance in his claims of the blue scarf woman. It’s quite clear he is completely out of his depth.

Craig, do you believe in the existence of a conspiracy, and if so who are your Top Ten suspects who could be indicted

today, given the current state of the evidence, if they were not already otherwise rendered into dust?

[Craig Lamson]

Simply outstanding my asp! Once again Jack White shows his total inability to understand even the most simply of photographic principles...how film is exposed.

We can forgive Doug Horne for his ignorance in his claims of the blue scarf woman. It’s quite clear he is completely out of his depth.

Craig, do you believe in the existence of a conspiracy, and if so who are your Top Ten suspects who could be indicted

today, given the current state of the evidence, if they were not already otherwise rendered into dust?

As I've stated more than once, I don't care who killed JFK and I don't play the game of speculation who or why. I only have an interest in the truth about the photography.

[John Bevilaqua]

Thanks Craig,

You've just saved me 85 bucks.

Cheers

Duncan

Come on, Duncan, we all humored you and talked you down from the ledge as you were pursuing the UFO angles, right?

The least you can do is to give Doug Horne the opportunity to state his case, and to analyze the work as an entirety.

Almost everyone gets a few factoids just a little bit off. Can you forgive him just a few of these debatable, subtle items in something well over 2,000 pages? I mean you neglected to account for something as simple as the fact that the bus was actually in motion between photos, and that the scratch or smear or the hair on the window or on the camera lens would actually appear to change it's relative position in the process.

I mean for a while there while following that UFO thread, I first thought that you were just kidding and spoofing the concept of off-the-wall research, then I actually thought you were just pulling some kind of Philip J. Corso PsyOps, mind control accidental or on purpose mind games like "War of the Worlds" by Orson Welles turned out, albeit inadvertently, either just for the actual exercise or for the fun of it, and then finally I realized that you were dead serious but still managed somehow to withhold the full force of my usually acerbic wit.

So cut Doug Horne a little slack, please. It is a monumental work after a monumental effort and while I do not necessarily even follow or begin to comprehend the medical evidence due to my own personal reasons, that is no

reason to just blatantly write it off as a worthless effort. Spring for the $85.00 and give it a thorough read. Just cancel out a few of those Sci-Fi magazine subscriptions or some of those UFO pay-per-view web sites you frequent, and you should have it all just about covered.

1) Ever been to Area 51 in New Mexico? Got any pictures?

2) Do you believe that Lt. Col. Philip J. Corso actually attended an Alien Autopsy as he claims?

3) Have you ever attended an Alien Autopsy, invited or otherwise, and did you take any pictures?

4) Did the aliens take any pictures of you during this alleged Alien Autopsy? Who were the surgeons?

5) Have you or anyone else you know or talked to, ever been beamed up into an Alien Spacecraft?

6) If so, could you share with us for the benefit of mankind, the interactions which occurred?

7) Did you ever hear the one about the interaction between the couple from Venus and the Iowa farming couple

who engaged in the first ever recorded Inter-Galactic or Inter-Planetary wife-swapping exchange?

The punch line is: "That Venutian woman almost twisted my damn fool ears off!"

Just curious.

Cheers!

[David Andrews]

I eagerly await the revelations of the HOLLYWOOD GROUP, assuming they

are allowed to survive! I hope icepick assassins do not invade their homes.

Forgive me my licence, everybody - but I have come to believe that this Forum will not be complete until a hit is actually organized, contracted, and carried out here, a la Paddy Chayefsky's Network.

Edited December 27, 2009 by David Andrews

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Duncan,

Since I had not thought you belonged on the list of phonies, frauds and fakes, please tell me how Lamson's find (if it qualifies as such) that Horne may be mistaken about a blue scarf has any impact at all upon his most important contributions, which I have summarized above (in case you missed it):

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blog" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork." (By this, Rutan meant we were not looking at traveling mattes; we were looking at painted visual effects superimposed on top of the original film frames--by inference, he meant aerial imaging.) The film editor concurred with his two colleagues. To say that this was an electrifying moment would be a gross understatement.

"The considered opinions of our two film restoration professionals, who together have spent over five decades restoring and working with films of the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (when visual effects were done optically--not digitally), in that one moment superseded the statements of all those in the JFK research community who have insisted for two decades now that the Zapruder film could not have been altered, because the technology did not exist to do so. Our two restoration experts know special effects in modern motion picture films far better than Josiah Thompson, or David Wrone, or Gary Mack, or Robert Groden, or me, for that matter; and their subjective opinion [better: professional judgment] trumps Rollie Zavada's as well--a man who has absolutely no experience whatsoever in the post production of visual effects in motion picture films. And while Rollie Zavada, a lifetime Kodak employee receiving retirement pay from his former employer, would certain have an apparent conflict of interest in blowing the whistle on Zapruder film forgery if his former employer was involved in its alteration, our three Hollywood film professionals had no vested interest, one way or the other, in the outcome of their examination of the 6Kscans on August 25th of 2009."

Even assuming Doug made a mistake about a scarf, how does that affect (i) his destruction of the official "chain of custody" and (ii) these reports by film experts that substantiate Zapruder alteration? Discounting them on that basis would be a blunder. So why would you do something like that?

Jim

Thanks Craig,

You've just saved me 85 bucks.

Cheers

Duncan

[Craig Lamson]

Duncan,

Since I had not thought you belonged on the list of phonies, frauds and fakes, please tell me how Lamson's find (if it qualifies as such) that Horne may be mistaken about a blue scarf has any impact at all upon his most important contributions, which I have summarized above (in case you missed it):

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blog" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork." (By this, Rutan meant we were not looking at traveling mattes; we were looking at painted visual effects superimposed on top of the original film frames--by inference, he meant aerial imaging.) The film editor concurred with his two colleagues. To say that this was an electrifying moment would be a gross understatement.

"The considered opinions of our two film restoration professionals, who together have spent over five decades restoring and working with films of the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (when visual effects were done optically--not digitally), in that one moment superseded the statements of all those in the JFK research community who have insisted for two decades now that the Zapruder film could not have been altered, because the technology did not exist to do so. Our two restoration experts know special effects in modern motion picture films far better than Josiah Thompson, or David Wrone, or Gary Mack, or Robert Groden, or me, for that matter; and their subjective opinion [better: professional judgment] trumps Rollie Zavada's as well--a man who has absolutely no experience whatsoever in the post production of visual effects in motion picture films. And while Rollie Zavada, a lifetime Kodak employee receiving retirement pay from his former employer, would certain have an apparent conflict of interest in blowing the whistle on Zapruder film forgery if his former employer was involved in its alteration, our three Hollywood film professionals had no vested interest, one way or the other, in the outcome of their examination of the 6Kscans on August 25th of 2009."

Even assuming Doug made a mistake about a scarf, how does that affect (i) his destruction of the official "chain of custody" and (ii) these reports by film experts that substantiate Zapruder alteration? Discounting them on that basis would be a blunder. So why would you do something like that?

Jim

Thanks Craig,

You've just saved me 85 bucks.

Cheers

Duncan

Geez jimbo, you need to bone up on the gross error your vaunted Ryan made in regards to frames 302 and 303.

But I must say, being the village idiot does become you.

As far as the "opinions" of the holloyweirds, well opinions are like assholes...

Once they can provide solid emprical proof they are just more of the same... crackpots with an OPINION. In other words...worthless.

Edited December 26, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

All,

I have just interviewed Doug Horne, the senior analysis for

military affairs for the Assassination Records Review Board,

on "American Awakening", Oracle Broadcasting Network, from

4-6 PM/CT. I would simply like to report some of his major

findings, which annihilate the efforts of Josiah Thompson,

Craig Lamson, Leonard Colby, and others to support Zapruder

film authenticity, which he (Thompson) has described as "the

closest thing to absolute truth" we have about the execution.

(1) Doug has explained that another version of the Zapruder

was brought to the National Photographic Interpretation Center

on Sunday the 24th by Agent William Smith, who produced an un-

cut 16mm version he had brought from Kodak Headquarters, which

is located in Rochester, which was the second introduction of

the "Zapruder film" to Homer McMahon, who was in charge of the

color photo section. On this occasion, Ben Hunter was present.

The night before, however, an earlier version had been brought

to the NPIC, which was already cut into an 8mm copy, where the

NPIC had to go out and have a camera store opened especially to

purchase an 8mm projector, which they did not have on hand at

the center. On this occasion, Ben Hunter was not present. So

we have two different physically distinct films being brought

to the NPIC on successive evenings, the second from Rochester.

(2) Doug arranged for Hollywood experts on film restoration to

study a 6k version of the film (where each frame was turned into

a six-thousand pixel version to facilitate study), and the three

experts who viewed it were unanimous that frames had been altered,

especially those around the head wound, where the massive blow-out

at the back of the skull had been painted out with black paint and

the "blob", an enormous eruption of brain matter to the right front

to simulate the effect of a shot from behind, had been painted in.

Indeed, the number who agree the film is fake has grown to seven.

(3) Doug, who discusses Josiah's book at several junctures in the

course of his research, observed a rather stunning inconsistency

in SIX SECOND IN DALLAS (1967), where Thompson's study of the

film provides the basis for his analysis. On page 107, in particular,

he published a diagram of the massive blow-out to the back of the

head, which Dr. Robert McClelland had approved based upon his own

observations of the wound at Parkland. Yet this diagram stands in

striking contradiction to the bulging out of the wound to the right-

front in the Zapruder film. The diagram already impeaches the film.

So what is going on here? Although Josiah likes to pose as though

he were rigorous and scientific in his research, this inconsistency

indicates that either what Dr. McClelland observed at Parkland was

wrong or the Zapruder film has been faked. Thompson has made his

defense of the film's authenticity hinge upon treating the film as

though it had primacy as evidence over the testimony of witnesses,

whose reports have been impeached on that basis. Yet we know from

legal authorities, such as McCORMICK ON EVIDENCE, 3rd ed. (1984)

section 214, that photographs, diagrams and films require witness

authentication to be admissible as evidence in legal proceedings. In

fact, I made the point in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), page 210.

Now is it reasonable to infer that Josiah Thompson, who makes his

living as a private detective, does not know the rules of evidence

and that photographs and films require witness authentication to be

admissible in courts of law? Is is reasonable to infer that Josiah

Thompson, who earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at Yale, does not know

that the McClelland diagram contradicts the version of events shown

in the Zapruder film? And is it reasonable to infer that Josiah

Thompson is unaware that his efforts to defend Zapruder authenticity

makes him an accessory after the fact to the cover up in the death

of our 35th president? These are questions all of us have to ponder.

There will be swirling controversy generated either by claiming that

this is all "old news", by attempting to ignore the refutation of the

chain-of-custory argument, or by finding some relatively minor point

to attack, such as the misspelling of a name or a mis-description. I

take it this "blue scarf" issue is the preferred avenue of attack. The

modus operandi is familiar and I've told Doug what to expect, where

the names of Lamson and Colby and Thompson--and, I surmise, at

this juncture--MacRae are going to become very familiar to him. We

shall see how it plays out, but there's no room for doubt that it's begun.

Others are better positioned to assess whether or not Doug has made

a mistake in relation to the "blue scarf". In the course of composing

nearly 2,000 pages of studies, it would be highly improbable were he

not to commit some errors. The proportion of truth to falsity in this

case, however, appears to be very high, unlike some studies, such as

Vincent Bugliosi's RECLAIMING HISTORY, where the opposite is the

case. But I wonder if Duncan MacRae has been paying attention to

the arguments that Josiah has been advancing for years and years--

that the film can't have been faked because the chain of custody didn't

permit it. If he doesn't understand that, he's not ready for prime time.

Jim

Duncan,

Since I had not thought you belonged on the list of phonies, frauds and fakes, please tell me how Lamson's find (if it qualifies as such) that Horne may be mistaken about a blue scarf has any impact at all upon his most important contributions, which I have summarized above (in case you missed it):

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blog" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork." (By this, Rutan meant we were not looking at traveling mattes; we were looking at painted visual effects superimposed on top of the original film frames--by inference, he meant aerial imaging.) The film editor concurred with his two colleagues. To say that this was an electrifying moment would be a gross understatement.

"The considered opinions of our two film restoration professionals, who together have spent over five decades restoring and working with films of the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (when visual effects were done optically--not digitally), in that one moment superseded the statements of all those in the JFK research community who have insisted for two decades now that the Zapruder film could not have been altered, because the technology did not exist to do so. Our two restoration experts know special effects in modern motion picture films far better than Josiah Thompson, or David Wrone, or Gary Mack, or Robert Groden, or me, for that matter; and their subjective opinion [better: professional judgment] trumps Rollie Zavada's as well--a man who has absolutely no experience whatsoever in the post production of visual effects in motion picture films. And while Rollie Zavada, a lifetime Kodak employee receiving retirement pay from his former employer, would certain have an apparent conflict of interest in blowing the whistle on Zapruder film forgery if his former employer was involved in its alteration, our three Hollywood film professionals had no vested interest, one way or the other, in the outcome of their examination of the 6Kscans on August 25th of 2009."

Even assuming Doug made a mistake about a scarf, how does that affect (i) his destruction of the official "chain of custody" and (ii) these reports by film experts that substantiate Zapruder alteration? Discounting them on that basis would be a blunder. So why would you do something like that?

Jim

Jim,

Rather than answer questions about chain of custody etc, which does absolutely nothing to prove that the Zapruder film was faked or not faked, I would rather you, Doug, or any of these film experts addressed Craig's analysis to either confirm or debunk his conclusion.

Duncan

Edited December 27, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

John B, Jack W, Bill K (and possibly others):

A reminder that there is a banned word when used in relation to Forum members. You can call George Bush a xxxx, you can call Georgte Washington a xxxx, but you may not do the same to another Forum member. You can say they are misleading, wrong, uninformed or similar but do not call them a xxxx without clearing it first with John Simkin.

Thank you.

[Dean Hagerman]

Thanks Craig,

You've just saved me 85 bucks.

Cheers

Duncan

Duncan

I can not believe you just wrote that

Your not going to buy ANY of Dougs volumes because of Craigs DVD and Grey background study?

Duncan I am reading Volume 4 right now, and you need to buy these

Im telling you as a fellow researcher/student, I know you will not only like reading Dougs work but I also think you should read them as the admin of your own forum

In the next couple months myself and others will be talking about Dougs work ALOT, I think it would be great if you are going to be debating with me against Dougs findings (which you have shown already that you are against Doug) that you own your own copies of his volumes to read and use when certain subjects are being talked about

Duncan I respect you alot more then you think, I was looking forward to talking in depth with you and others at both forums about Dougs work

I would re-think your jumping on Craigs bandwagon

[Dean Hagerman]

This is one of the most terrible things I have seen written on this forum.

Kathy

Tink has said much worse about Jim on this very forum, just go back through the threads and re-read them

Im proud of the fact that Jim is the "spokesmodel" as you put it for the "alterationist camp"

And you want to know a fun fact? Tink Thompsons "Six Seconds In Dallas" is one of my favorite books, in fact one of Tinks main theories is one of my main theories

Can you believe that?

Edited December 27, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[William Kelly]

John B, Jack W, Bill K (and possibly others):

A reminder that there is a banned word when used in relation to Forum members. You can call George Bush a xxxx, you can call Georgte Washington a xxxx, but you may not do the same to another Forum member. You can say they are misleading, wrong, uninformed or similar but do not call them a xxxx without clearing it first with John Simkin.

Thank you.

Don't make me laugh. Evan Burton is a high school hall monitor joke.

Mr. Deputy, don't you think it's a lot tooo late to start reminding John B. about anything?

He can hijack the most important thread on this forum in order to slander Jack White without correcting the record and correctly calling him a Spade?

I don't believe I've called anyone a xxxx, yet he's not a xxxx when he calls me "a misogynistic, misanthropic miscreant, with an alcoholic father, unstable mother, exagerated social status, frequent user of the word "n" with 8th grade spelling skills and 6th grade logic and reasoning skills and live a nondescript life as an Atlantic City blackjack dealer and that COPA should be a registered Hate Group."

And FYI, as he says, "Since you probably don't know what misogynists or misanthropes even are here are the definitions: Misogyny (IPA: /mɪˈsɒʤəˌni/) is hatred or strong prejudice against women; an antonym of philogyny. Although misogyny is sometimes confused with misanthropy, the terms are not interchangeable, for the latter refers more generally to the hatred of humanity...." I should post the entire discourse to properly educate the forum teachers and educators about such things, but I won't, unless necssary.

That none of it is true, except maybe the spelling part, doesn't matter, since he has a free hall pass to say whatever he wants as long as he doesn't call anyone a xxxx.

It's okay that he's of the mistaken opinion I work at an Atlantic City casino and can get the Casino Control Commission to investigate me and try to get me fired from my mythical job, as long as he doesn't call me a xxxx. And he can probably do that if he gets permission from the adminstration. The joke's on me.

There is no need for a moderator if you aren't going to stop him from insulting other forum members, hijacking posts and sturring discord, and apparently your not. Meanwhile, John B. can get John Gillespie booted off the forum for not having a proper photo, yet he doesn't have a proper photo himself? The joke's John G. and on everybody who bothered to post their picture.

I think everybody has pretty much figured out how to deal with him, and you and the moderators can stay out of it.

Now be sure to check with Simkin before responding.

Bill Kelly

Edited December 27, 2009 by William Kelly

[John Costella]

I have not had time to delve into Doug Horne's volumes in detail (I only received Volume IV a few days ago), but I have already noted a number of disappointing erroneous claims regarding the Stemmons sign.

In terms of this "blue scarf" issue -- which Doug summarises succinctly on a web page referenced above -- my opinion is that Craig Lamson is absolutely correct.

I agree with Jim that these errors should not invalidate all of Doug's work, particularly those non-technical aspects of his investigations, but it certainly gives his critics plenty of "free hits".

I'm otherwise occupied with more pressing issues, but I'll return to Horne's work as time permits. Please, all, don't try to drag me into a lengthy flame war at this time.

John