Doug Horne

[William Kelly]

I've been scratching my head trying to figure out what is new in this discussion of Doug Horne's interviews at NPIC. We know from the Phillips receipt that the Secret Service received a first-generation copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas at 9:30 PM on Friday, November 22nd. We also know that that copy was immediately flown to Washington, D.C. It would be natural for the Secret Service to both make additional copies in Washington and send an agent over to NPIC with the photo material. The first generation copy flown to Washington would have had no images in the intersprocket area.

What we know independently comports well with what Ben Hunter tells us. He worked on the film at NPIC most likely on Saturday, November 23rd. The film he worked on had no intersprocket images and hence was a copy not the original. It showed what the published the Zapruder film shows. The film was brought to NPIC by a Secret Service agent but the name "Bill Smith" does not ring a bell for him as the name of the agent. He assumed the film was processed by Kodak in Rochester but did not recall being told this explicitly.

Still, I look forward to reading what Doug Horne has to say. What he has to say about the medical evidence will be especially intriguing. I've ordered all five parts of his work. Here are the relevant parts of Doug Horne's interview reports. They've been around for about ten years:

Meeting Report

Document's Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 06/18/97

Date of Meeting: 06/17/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter interviewed by Doug Horne, Jeremy Gunn, Dave Montague and Michelle Combs

He recalled that he and Homer McMahon worked with the Zapruder film very shortly after the assassination in 1963, just 2 or 3 days afterwards. At another point, he said it may have been the next day (Saturday) or Sunday, November 24, and he thought it was prior to the funeral of President Kennedy. He recalled that no one else from the NPIC (other than he and Homer McMahon) was in the building, which means it was almost certainly the weekend of the assassination; he also recalled that he had to drive from home to do this job, and that he was not already at work when the project was assigned.

His memories of film content were limited to seeing a skull explosion, bone fragments and Jackie crawling on the trunk of the car. Apparently to those involved that night the film was only referred to as a "home movie," but he seemed convinced that it was the Zapruder film based on subsequent viewings of it over the years...

His impression is that the film was probably 16 mm. format, but was not of an 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 described the film as "not high resolution."

Meeting Report

Document Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 8/14/97

Date of Meeting: 8/14/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter, Homer McMahon, Doug Horne and Jim Goslee

I asked both men if they still recalled that their 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 second night after the assassination (i.e. Saturday night).

Homer McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester, and the copies of it were made in Rochester also, and he personally 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 at Rochester," but did not independently recall that himself.

Homer McMahon recalled that Captain Sands was a Navy Captain who was one of the duty officers at NPIC; Bennett Hunter never did recall the name "Bill Smith" (the Secret Service agent remembered by McMahon), even after discussing the matter with McMahon.

Josiah Thompson

Hey TT,

Thanks for this response, and we look forward to your additional insights into Doug Horne's medical and Z-film material once you have digested it.

It seems that some people can form strong opinions without having read anything.

Bill Kelly

[Jack White]

Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore

he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.

The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made

and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection

of the film's official provenance.

Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's

technical analysis will leave him speechless.

Jack

Jack, you could not find a "technical mistake", nor understand it if it bit you on the asp.

Witness you gross inability to understand even a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Get back to us when you have the very first clue about photography.

When I briefly interviewed Marina Oswald at the Harvard JFK Conference in perhaps 1994-1995 she was very helpful

in discussing the circumstances surrounding the Oswald backyard photo shoot with me, explaining the time that elapsed

while she went inside first to change the film which had run out and then later to check on the pot roast in the oven.

When I asked her what she thought about the critical comments made by Jack White, she said: "Jack White, who is

this Jack White anyway? I have never talked to him. I have never got a letter from him. I have never heard of him.

And he is criticizing me and what I said about taking these pictures? Who is he anyway? He was not even there."

My sentiments exactly. And I think I know who Jack White's shadow really is. But only The Shadow Knows!

<removed - rule violation>

I have talked to Marina many times. She used to call me frequently on the phone.

In a week long symposium in Nebraska, I spoke with her several times. We both

sat out an hour long presentation by Craig Roberts on the MC rifle, because we

both had seen it the previous day. We sat on a lobby sofa side by side for an hour

and I had the opportunity to ask her many questions. I also told her about all of

the proofs of her husband being an agent. She was a chain smoker and consumed

two full packs of cigarettes as we sat there. She was next on the program, and

commented on our conversation in the lobby, saying at one point..."LEE, OR WHOEVER

IT WAS I WAS MARRIED TO..."

So the statement about Marina not knowing Jack White is wrong<Removed - Rule violation>.

Make of that what you will.

Jack

Edited December 27, 2009 by Evan Burton
Banned word

[John Bevilaqua]

Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore

he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.

The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made

and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection

of the film's official provenance.

Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's

technical analysis will leave him speechless.

Jack

Jack, you could not find a "technical mistake", nor understand it if it bit you on the asp.

Witness you gross inability to understand even a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Get back to us when you have the very first clue about photography.

When I briefly interviewed Marina Oswald at the Harvard JFK Conference in perhaps 1994-1995 she was very helpful

in discussing the circumstances surrounding the Oswald backyard photo shoot with me, explaining the time that elapsed

while she went inside first to change the film which had run out and then later to check on the pot roast in the oven.

When I asked her what she thought about the critical comments made by Jack White, she said: "Jack White, who is

this Jack White anyway? I have never talked to him. I have never got a letter from him. I have never heard of him.

And he is criticizing me and what I said about taking these pictures? Who is he anyway? He was not even there."

My sentiments exactly. And I think I know who Jack White's shadow really is. But only The Shadow Knows!

<Removed - Rule violation>

I have talked to Marina many times. She used to call me frequently on the phone.

In a week long symposium in Nebraska, I spoke with her several times. We both

sat out an hour long presentation by Craig Roberts on the MC rifle, because we

both had seen it the previous day. We sat on a lobby sofa side by side for an hour

and I had the opportunity to ask her many questions. I also told her about all of

the proofs of her husband being an agent. She was a chain smoker and consumed

two full packs of cigarettes as we sat there. She was next on the program, and

commented on our conversation in the lobby, saying at one point..."LEE, OR WHOEVER

IT WAS I WAS MARRIED TO..."

So the statement about Marina not knowing Jack White is wrong. <removed - rule violation>

Make of that what you will.

Jack

No it is not. What year was that alleged Nebraska forum anyway? And did you

ever discuss with her your conclusions about the backyard photos which attempt

to make her out to be a xxxx? Did you EVER talk to her about the backyard photos?

She said (as of 1995) that she never heard of you, and that no one named Jack

White ever had asked her about the backyard photos? Are you calling her a xxxx

as well? I have a witness to that conversation outside the Harvard conference.

<removed - rule violation>. Make of that what you will.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Evan Burton
Rule violation

[Bernice Moore]

Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore

he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.

The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made

and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection

of the film's official provenance.

Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's

technical analysis will leave him speechless.

Jack

Jack, you could not find a "technical mistake", nor understand it if it bit you on the asp.

Witness you gross inability to understand even a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Get back to us when you have the very first clue about photography.

When I briefly interviewed Marina Oswald at the Harvard JFK Conference in perhaps 1994-1995 she was very helpful

in discussing the circumstances surrounding the Oswald backyard photo shoot with me, explaining the time that elapsed

while she went inside first to change the film which had run out and then later to check on the pot roast in the oven.

When I asked her what she thought about the critical comments made by Jack White, she said: "Jack White, who is

this Jack White anyway? I have never talked to him. I have never got a letter from him. I have never heard of him.

And he is criticizing me and what I said about taking these pictures? Who is he anyway? He was not even there."

My sentiments exactly. And I think I know who Jack White's shadow really is. But only The Shadow Knows!

<Removed - Rule violation>

I have talked to Marina many times. She used to call me frequently on the phone.

In a week long symposium in Nebraska, I spoke with her several times. We both

sat out an hour long presentation by Craig Roberts on the MC rifle, because we

both had seen it the previous day. We sat on a lobby sofa side by side for an hour

and I had the opportunity to ask her many questions. I also told her about all of

the proofs of her husband being an agent. She was a chain smoker and consumed

two full packs of cigarettes as we sat there. She was next on the program, and

commented on our conversation in the lobby, saying at one point..."LEE, OR WHOEVER

IT WAS I WAS MARRIED TO..."

So the statement about Marina not knowing Jack White is wrong. <removed - rule violation>

Make of that what you will.

Jack

Despite how the WC and some others would like to make of Marina, in my discussions and letter exchanges with her she is NO fool!...in fact, I find her both of very high intelligence, no one's fool - knowing full well how she and her husband (whoever he was) were used, abused and thrown to the wolves. When I talked to her she knew perfectly well who Jack White was and his photo studies. She WAS hesitant to TOTALLY repudiate her WC testimony and coerced statements in the 'early CIA-minded' period, but she made very clear that she did NOT any longer believe generally what she had been painted to believe at that time. She further made it totally clear she felt her husband was executed; that he was an agent - one that was turned on by his controllers; that he had no direct part in JFK's assassination. She was one hell of a chain smoker and could choke a horse at 100 meters. She too was used, abused, coerced and lied to. She has made contradictory statements under duress [in the early period], but that she had NO idea of who Jack White is and his photo studies of the BYP I'm very, VERY skeptical - or in total disbelief. 

Peter Marina as you imply is much more up on all than some give her credit for..she now believes and has clearly stated she believes that Lee was innocent..I believe she is very aware of those researchers that have worked to exonorate him as Jack has done and those who have continually tried to bury him as the lone assassin...Now seeing that Jack has spent 40 odd years in this work of trying to prove his innocence and a conspiracy let's take just the one study the backyard and his findings of alteration within them... .how could she not know whom he is..that only stands to reason ...and anyone who may think differently should take another thought and perhaps use some common sense in this scenario they weave...b

www.youtube.com/GJJdude Marina

Edited December 27, 2009 by Evan Burton

[William Kelly]

Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore

he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.

The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made

and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection

of the film's official provenance.

Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's

technical analysis will leave him speechless.

Jack

Jack, you could not find a "technical mistake", nor understand it if it bit you on the asp.

Witness you gross inability to understand even a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Get back to us when you have the very first clue about photography.

When I briefly interviewed Marina Oswald at the Harvard JFK Conference in perhaps 1994-1995 she was very helpful

in discussing the circumstances surrounding the Oswald backyard photo shoot with me, explaining the time that elapsed

while she went inside first to change the film which had run out and then later to check on the pot roast in the oven.

When I asked her what she thought about the critical comments made by Jack White, she said: "Jack White, who is

this Jack White anyway? I have never talked to him. I have never got a letter from him. I have never heard of him.

And he is criticizing me and what I said about taking these pictures? Who is he anyway? He was not even there."

My sentiments exactly. And I think I know who Jack White's shadow really is. But only The Shadow Knows!

<Removed - Rule violation>

I have talked to Marina many times. She used to call me frequently on the phone.

In a week long symposium in Nebraska, I spoke with her several times. We both

sat out an hour long presentation by Craig Roberts on the MC rifle, because we

both had seen it the previous day. We sat on a lobby sofa side by side for an hour

and I had the opportunity to ask her many questions. I also told her about all of

the proofs of her husband being an agent. She was a chain smoker and consumed

two full packs of cigarettes as we sat there. She was next on the program, and

commented on our conversation in the lobby, saying at one point..."LEE, OR WHOEVER

IT WAS I WAS MARRIED TO..."

So the statement about Marina not knowing Jack White is wrong. <removed - rule violation>

Make of that what you will.

Jack

Despite how the WC and some others would like to make of Marina, in my discussions and letter exchanges with her she is NO fool!...in fact, I find her both of very high intelligence, no one's fool - knowing full well how she and her husband (whoever he was) were used, abused and thrown to the wolves. When I talked to her she knew perfectly well who Jack White was and his photo studies. She WAS hesitant to TOTALLY repudiate her WC testimony and coerced statements in the 'early CIA-minded' period, but she made very clear that she did NOT any longer believe generally what she had been painted to believe at that time. She further made it totally clear she felt her husband was executed; that he was an agent - one that was turned on by his controllers; that he had no direct part in JFK's assassination. She was one hell of a chain smoker and could choke a horse at 100 meters. She too was used, abused, coerced and lied to. She has made contradictory statements under duress [in the early period], but that she had NO idea of who Jack White is and his photo studies of the BYP I'm very, VERY skeptical - or in total disbelief.

Peter Marina as you imply is much more up on all than some give her credit for..she now believes and has clearly stated she believes that Lee was innocent..I believe she is very aware of those researchers that have worked to exonorate him as Jack has done and those who have continually tried to bury him as the lone assassin...Now seeing that Jack has spent 40 odd years in this work of trying to prove his innocence and a conspiracy let's take just the one study the backyard and his findings of alteration within them... .how could she not know whom he is..that only stands to reason ...and anyone who may think differently should take another thought and perhaps use some common sense in this scenario they weave...b

www.youtube.com/GJJdude Marina

Well it seems that John Belaquavelva has successfully diverted this important thread on Doug Horne and his work to silly comments regarding Marina's feelings towards other researchers.

Discordians at work. <removed - rule violation>, he misrepresents himself, and has more aliases than Gregory Douglas.

BK

Edited December 27, 2009 by Evan Burton

[William Kelly]

I've been scratching my head trying to figure out what is new in this discussion of Doug Horne's interviews at NPIC. We know from the Phillips receipt that the Secret Service received a first-generation copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas at 9:30 PM on Friday, November 22nd. We also know that that copy was immediately flown to Washington, D.C. It would be natural for the Secret Service to both make additional copies in Washington and send an agent over to NPIC with the photo material. The first generation copy flown to Washington would have had no images in the intersprocket area.

What we know independently comports well with what Ben Hunter tells us. He worked on the film at NPIC most likely on Saturday, November 23rd. The film he worked on had no intersprocket images and hence was a copy not the original. It showed what the published the Zapruder film shows. The film was brought to NPIC by a Secret Service agent but the name "Bill Smith" does not ring a bell for him as the name of the agent. He assumed the film was processed by Kodak in Rochester but did not recall being told this explicitly.

Still, I look forward to reading what Doug Horne has to say. What he has to say about the medical evidence will be especially intriguing. I've ordered all five parts of his work. Here are the relevant parts of Doug Horne's interview reports. They've been around for about ten years:

Meeting Report

Document's Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 06/18/97

Date of Meeting: 06/17/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter interviewed by Doug Horne, Jeremy Gunn, Dave Montague and Michelle Combs

He recalled that he and Homer McMahon worked with the Zapruder film very shortly after the assassination in 1963, just 2 or 3 days afterwards. At another point, he said it may have been the next day (Saturday) or Sunday, November 24, and he thought it was prior to the funeral of President Kennedy. He recalled that no one else from the NPIC (other than he and Homer McMahon) was in the building, which means it was almost certainly the weekend of the assassination; he also recalled that he had to drive from home to do this job, and that he was not already at work when the project was assigned.

His memories of film content were limited to seeing a skull explosion, bone fragments and Jackie crawling on the trunk of the car. Apparently to those involved that night the film was only referred to as a "home movie," but he seemed convinced that it was the Zapruder film based on subsequent viewings of it over the years...

His impression is that the film was probably 16 mm. format, but was not of an 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 described the film as "not high resolution."

Meeting Report

Document Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 8/14/97

Date of Meeting: 8/14/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter, Homer McMahon, Doug Horne and Jim Goslee

I asked both men if they still recalled that their 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 second night after the assassination (i.e. Saturday night).

Homer McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester, and the copies of it were made in Rochester also, and he personally 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 at Rochester," but did not independently recall that himself.

Homer McMahon recalled that Captain Sands was a Navy Captain who was one of the duty officers at NPIC; Bennett Hunter never did recall the name "Bill Smith" (the Secret Service agent remembered by McMahon), even after discussing the matter with McMahon.

Josiah Thompson

Hey TT,

Thanks for this response, and we look forward to your additional insights into Doug Horne's medical and Z-film material once you have digested it.

It seems that some people can form strong opinions without having read anything.

Bill Kelly

Now that some forum members have Horne's books or at one of them, perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion about what he actually says, rather than about the lies propagated by others.

BK

[Jack White]

Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore

he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.

The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made

and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection

of the film's official provenance.

Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's

technical analysis will leave him speechless.

Jack

Jack, you could not find a "technical mistake", nor understand it if it bit you on the asp.

Witness you gross inability to understand even a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Get back to us when you have the very first clue about photography.

When I briefly interviewed Marina Oswald at the Harvard JFK Conference in perhaps 1994-1995 she was very helpful

in discussing the circumstances surrounding the Oswald backyard photo shoot with me, explaining the time that elapsed

while she went inside first to change the film which had run out and then later to check on the pot roast in the oven.

When I asked her what she thought about the critical comments made by Jack White, she said: "Jack White, who is

this Jack White anyway? I have never talked to him. I have never got a letter from him. I have never heard of him.

And he is criticizing me and what I said about taking these pictures? Who is he anyway? He was not even there."

My sentiments exactly. And I think I know who Jack White's shadow really is. But only The Shadow Knows!

<Removed - Rule violation>

I have talked to Marina many times. She used to call me frequently on the phone.

In a week long symposium in Nebraska, I spoke with her several times. We both

sat out an hour long presentation by Craig Roberts on the MC rifle, because we

both had seen it the previous day. We sat on a lobby sofa side by side for an hour

and I had the opportunity to ask her many questions. I also told her about all of

the proofs of her husband being an agent. She was a chain smoker and consumed

two full packs of cigarettes as we sat there. She was next on the program, and

commented on our conversation in the lobby, saying at one point..."LEE, OR WHOEVER

IT WAS I WAS MARRIED TO..."

So the statement about Marina not knowing Jack White is wrong. <removed - rule violation>

Make of that what you will.

Jack

No it is not. What year was that alleged Nebraska forum anyway? And did you

ever discuss with her your conclusions about the backyard photos which attempt

to make her out to be a xxxx? Did you EVER talk to her about the backyard photos?

She said (as of 1995) that she never heard of you, and that no one named Jack

White ever had asked her about the backyard photos? Are you calling her a xxxx

as well? I have a witness to that conversation outside the Harvard conference.

<removed - rule violation>. Make of that what you will.

Sir...I do not know you. But I know a lie when I read one. And it was not a

"Nebraska forum" but a 5-day symposium in Lawrence KANSAS. During our

hour sofa conversation we covered everything you mention and more. Take

your choice...either Marina lied or you are wrong <removed - rule violation>.

Jack

Edited December 27, 2009 by Evan Burton

[William Kelly]

Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore

he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.

The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made

and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection

of the film's official provenance.

Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's

technical analysis will leave him speechless.

Jack

Jack, you could not find a "technical mistake", nor understand it if it bit you on the asp.

Witness you gross inability to understand even a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Get back to us when you have the very first clue about photography.

When I briefly interviewed Marina Oswald at the Harvard JFK Conference in perhaps 1994-1995 she was very helpful

in discussing the circumstances surrounding the Oswald backyard photo shoot with me, explaining the time that elapsed

while she went inside first to change the film which had run out and then later to check on the pot roast in the oven.

When I asked her what she thought about the critical comments made by Jack White, she said: "Jack White, who is

this Jack White anyway? I have never talked to him. I have never got a letter from him. I have never heard of him.

And he is criticizing me and what I said about taking these pictures? Who is he anyway? He was not even there."

My sentiments exactly. And I think I know who Jack White's shadow really is. But only The Shadow Knows!

<removed - rule violation>

I have talked to Marina many times. She used to call me frequently on the phone.

In a week long symposium in Nebraska, I spoke with her several times. We both

sat out an hour long presentation by Craig Roberts on the MC rifle, because we

both had seen it the previous day. We sat on a lobby sofa side by side for an hour

and I had the opportunity to ask her many questions. I also told her about all of

the proofs of her husband being an agent. She was a chain smoker and consumed

two full packs of cigarettes as we sat there. She was next on the program, and

commented on our conversation in the lobby, saying at one point..."LEE, OR WHOEVER

IT WAS I WAS MARRIED TO..."

So the statement about Marina not knowing Jack White is wrong. <removed - rule violation>

Make of that what you will.

Jack

No it is not. What year was that alleged Nebraska forum anyway? And did you

ever discuss with her your conclusions about the backyard photos which attempt

to make her out to be a xxxx? Did you EVER talk to her about the backyard photos?

She said (as of 1995) that she never heard of you, and that no one named Jack

White ever had asked her about the backyard photos? Are you calling her a xxxx

as well? I have a witness to that conversation outside the Harvard conference.

<removed - rule violation>. Make of that what you will.

Sir...I do not know you. But I know a lie when I read one. And it was not a

"Nebraska forum" but a 5-day symposium in Lawrence KANSAS. During our

hour sofa conversation we covered everything you mention and more. Take

your choice...either Marina lied or you are wrong. <removed - rule violation>

Jack

JB not only misrepresents Jack White, he misrepresents himself, slides up next to witnesses, uses more aliases than Gregory Douglas, and then tries to intentionally poison everybody.

Okay, let's say the next time I talk to Marina I'm going to tell her JB or Simkin or anybody I want to tag your it - says she's a Soviet spy. It doesn't matter if she is, or if anybody even thinks she is, as long as I say it, it becomes a fact that distracts from the truth, and that's what JB is doing here and now.

He has successfully hijacked this thread, which at one time was devoted to a serious discussion of Doug Horne and his new, revolutionary work, and he has made it into a circus sideshow.

No wonder Marina or Doug Horne or anybody of any sense won't come on this forum, and they won't as long as those whose intent is to encourage discord are given free reign.

I don't blame them.

I was invited to join this forum because John Simkin said it would be a forum for a serious discussion about the assassination, and I'm sure Jack White was invited too. Now I don't know why Jack bothers to stick around.

BK

Edited December 27, 2009 by Evan Burton

[Craig Lamson]

Sheesh, you sure do whine a lot....

Edited December 27, 2009 by Evan Burton

[Peter Fokes]

I've ordered all five parts of his work.

Josiah Thompson

Hey TT,

Thanks for this response, and we look forward to your additional insights into Doug Horne's medical and Z-film material once you have digested it.

It seems that some people can form strong opinions without having read anything.

Bill Kelly

Indeed they can and do!

A hearty BRAVO to Josiah for ordering the full set!

Alas, an excellent supplement to Horne's book would be an examination of President Kennedy's body after an exhumation. But as Horne writes:

"It would be a little bit like reexamining a crime scene that had been maliciously tampered with by the suspects in a crime, but there is still much we would learn."

Not in our lifetime ..... methinks.

Regards,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

In appreciation to Bill Kelly, who has made valuable contributions to this thread, I would observe that my response to the early comment of J. Raymond Carroll applies to these remarks from Josiah Thompson, who has obviously adopted the twin strategies of (1) insisting that all of this (in Doug Horne's massive new book, which I am confident he has not read, just as he never read any of my three books but reviewed them nevertheless) is "old news" and (2) employing the method of selection and elimination by selecting only the evidence that supports his predetermined point of view and ignoring the rest (which is becoming increasingly difficult to practice, since the evidence for film fabrication has become massive). Observe how he neglects to mention that Horne has now completely destroyed the backbone of Josiah's defense, the alleged chain-of-custody argument or that film restoration experts, confronted with a large-scale version of the film, were appalled at the amateur fashion in which it had been altered. Read from this post, which appeared earlier on this thread, and appreciate that, not only does Josiah not read books, he doesn't read threads, either. He turns out to be as phony as the film.

This is a nice example of someone who has been out-of-touch with research on the authenticity of the Zapruder film, which has been proceeding at a rapid clip since the symposium on the film I organized and moderated at the Lancer Conference in 1996. Since the film has been used as the backbone of the cover up from its inception--including the creation of the "blob" of brains bulging forward, the missing right-front cranial mass from the x-rays, the caption for frame 313 in LIFE magazine describing how the direction of the shot was determined by the study of the film, and Abraham Zapruder's appearance on television that evening, using his had to show a blow-out to the right-front that did not occur--it would have been extremely unfortunate had Doug Horne followed the advice of J. Raymond Carroll and suppressed his research on the film. Indeed, one of the great virtues of Vol. IV is its exposure of film fakery.

Let me say that Doug Horne has been extremely generous in acknowledging the previous work by Jack White, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, and David Lifton, who are those who have made the most important contributions to establishing that the Z-film has been recreated. After all, anyone who takes for granted that the film is authentic--as have generations of students of the crime in generations past--will be unable to reconstruct what actually happened in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, since some events--such as William Greer bringing the limousine to a halt to make certain JFK would be killed, Motorcycle Patrolman Cheney's motoring forward to advise Chief Curry that he had been shot, and Mary Moorman and Jean Hill's stepping into the street to take Mary's famous Polariod--have been removed, while other events--such as the bulging "blob", the blood spray, and the passengers being thrown forward WHILE THE LIMO WAS ACCELERATING--have been added in. Horne's studies reinforce these discoveries.

I especially like the manner in which Doug Horne encourages other students of JFK to abandon their long-held but provably-false belief in Zapruder film authenticity:

The biggest problem we face right now in the JFK research community are the legions of "old guard" researchers who refuse to face this fact [that the Z-film has been fabricated] and who stubbornly cling to some piece of "bedrock evidence", which in their mind will lead them out of the wilderness if only they study it long enough and can divine its true meaning. For Thompson, Wrone, Weisberg, Groden, and may others, the Zapruder film has been this piece of bedrock evidence for over four decades. I say to the old guard who have continued to insist that the Zapruder film is an authentic and unaltered film in spite of the mounting evidence of its alteration, "Come on over, and see the light." You will feel better for having done so--in fact, it will liberate you. Once you accept the fact that the Zapruder film is a clever (but imperfect) forgery, you are free suddenly to believe the Dealey Plaza car stop witnesses (which include several Dallas motorcycle policemen and Bill Newman); Marily Sitzman; the Kodak laboratory personnel (who all say the original film was slit the evening of the assassination); Marilyn Willis; Erwin Schwartz; Cartha DeLoach; Dan Rather; and the Parkland doctors and nurses. For if you believe the Zapruder film is authentic, you must, of necessity, believe that all of these people are either liars, or incompetent and unreliable witnesses.

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."

In complete opposition to J. Raymond Carroll, I assert that, if this had been the only contribution of Doug Horne's research toward a better understanding of the assassination of JFK and its cover up, it would have been worth the price of the volume by itself! I am completely and utterly in awe and admiration for his painstaking efforts and meticulous research on the most controversial aspects of the case, where I believe that it has become impossible to deny that the film is a fabrication and that the cover up cannot be understood --even remotely!--without rejecting the blindfold extended by Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, Gary Mack, Rollie Zavada and their chums and allies, who have held back major advances in research on the basis of their misconceived objections to the alteration of the film. I therefore agree with Bill Kelly in his belief that "the corner has been turned" in relation to the question of Zapruder film alteration. Jack White, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton and I have known it for some time, but there is no substitute for a presentation that anyone with the capacity for objectivity can comprehend! For that--and for his diligence, his dedication, his intelligence, his self-sacrifice, and his professionalism--I congratulate him!

QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Nov 17 2009, 12:17 PM)

QUOTE (William Kelly @ Nov 17 2009, 10:30 AM)

Inside the Assassinations Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK

By Douglas P. Horne

Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassinations Records Review Board

Table of Contents

Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery p. 1185

Based on his interview with Dick Russell, my advice to Doug is to leave out this chapter entirely.

By his own admission, it is highly speculative. As such, its inclusion could seriously undermine the credibility of the book.

Instead he could just publish it on the Mary Ferrell site as a speculative article.

After all, its not as though the book will be TOO SHORT if this chapter is omitted.

And its not as though the book will not be CONTROVERSIAL enough if this chapter is omitted.

I’ve been scratching my head trying to figure out what is new in this discussion of Doug Horne’s interviews at NPIC. We know from the Phillips receipt that the Secret Service received a first-generation copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas at 9:30 PM on Friday, November 22nd. We also know that that copy was immediately flown to Washington, D.C. It would be natural for the Secret Service to both make additional copies in Washington and send an agent over to NPIC with the photo material. The first generation copy flown to Washington would have had no images in the intersprocket area.

What we know independently comports well with what Ben Hunter tells us. He worked on the film at NPIC most likely on Saturday, November 23rd. The film he worked on had no intersprocket images and hence was a copy not the original. It showed what the published the Zapruder film shows. The film was brought to NPIC by a Secret Service agent but the name “Bill Smith” does not ring a bell for him as the name of the agent. He assumed the film was processed by Kodak in Rochester but did not recall being told this explicitly.

Still, I look forward to reading what Doug Horne has to say. What he has to say about the medical evidence will be especially intriguing. I’ve ordered all five parts of his work. Here are the relevant parts of Doug Horne’s interview reports. They’ve been around for about ten years:

Meeting Report

Document’s Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 06/18/97

Date of Meeting: 06/17/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter interviewed by Doug Horne, Jeremy Gunn, Dave Montague and Michelle Combs

He recalled that he and Homer McMahon worked with the Zapruder film very shortly after the assassination in 1963, just 2 or 3 days afterwards. At another point, he said it may have been the next day (Saturday) or Sunday, November 24, and he thought it was prior to the funeral of President Kennedy. He recalled that no one else from the NPIC (other than he and Homer McMahon) was in the building, which means it was almost certainly the weekend of the assassination; he also recalled that he had to drive from home to do this job, and that he was not already at work when the project was assigned.

His memories of film content were limited to seeing a skull explosion, bone fragments and Jackie crawling on the trunk of the car. Apparently to those involved that night the film was only referred to as a “home movie,” but he seemed convinced that it was the Zapruder film based on subsequent viewings of it over the years...

His impression is that the film was probably 16 mm. format, but was not of an 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 described the film as “not high resolution.”

Meeting Report

Document Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 8/14/97

Date of Meeting: 8/14/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter, Homer McMahon, Doug Horne and Jim Goslee

I asked both men if they still recalled that their 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 second night after the assassination (i.e. Saturday night).

Homer McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester, and the copies of it were made in Rochester also, and he personally 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 at Rochester,” but did not independently recall that himself.

Homer McMahon recalled that Captain Sands was a Navy Captain who was one of the duty officers at NPIC; Bennett Hunter never did recall the name “Bill Smith” (the Secret Service agent remembered by McMahon), even after discussing the matter with McMahon.

Josiah Thompson

Edited December 25, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

In appreciation to Bill Kelly, who has made valuable contributions to this thread, I would observe that my response to the early comment of J. Raymond Carroll applies to these remarks from Josiah Thompson, who has obviously adopted the twin strategies of (1) insisting that all of this (in Doug Horne's massive new book, which I am confident he has not read, just as he never read any of my three books but reviewed them nevertheless) is "old news" and (2) employing the method of selection and elimination by selecting only the evidence that supports his predetermined point of view and ignoring the rest (which is becoming increasingly difficult to practice, since the evidence for film fabrication has become massive). Observe how he neglects to mention that Horne has now completely destroyed the backbone of Josiah's defense, the alleged chain-of-custody argument or that film restoration experts, confronted with a large-scale version of the film, were appalled at the amateur fashion in which it had been altered. Read from this post, which appeared earlier on this thread, and appreciate that, not only does Josiah not read books, he doesn't read threads, either. He turns out to be as phony as the film.

This is a nice example of someone who has been out-of-touch with research on the authenticity of the Zapruder film, which has been proceeding at a rapid clip since the symposium on the film I organized and moderated at the Lancer Conference in 1996. Since the film has been used as the backbone of the cover up from its inception--including the creation of the "blob" of brains bulging forward, the missing right-front cranial mass from the x-rays, the caption for frame 313 in LIFE magazine describing how the direction of the shot was determined by the study of the film, and Abraham Zapruder's appearance on television that evening, using his had to show a blow-out to the right-front that did not occur--it would have been extremely unfortunate had Doug Horne followed the advice of J. Raymond Carroll and suppressed his research on the film. Indeed, one of the great virtues of Vol. IV is its exposure of film fakery.

Let me say that Doug Horne has been extremely generous in acknowledging the previous work by Jack White, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, and David Lifton, who are those who have made the most important contributions to establishing that the Z-film has been recreated. After all, anyone who takes for granted that the film is authentic--as have generations of students of the crime in generations past--will be unable to reconstruct what actually happened in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, since some events--such as William Greer bringing the limousine to a halt to make certain JFK would be killed, Motorcycle Patrolman Cheney's motoring forward to advise Chief Curry that he had been shot, and Mary Moorman and Jean Hill's stepping into the street to take Mary's famous Polariod--have been removed, while other events--such as the bulging "blob", the blood spray, and the passengers being thrown forward WHILE THE LIMO WAS ACCELERATING--have been added in. Horne's studies reinforce these discoveries.

I especially like the manner in which Doug Horne encourages other students of JFK to abandon their long-held but provably-false belief in Zapruder film authenticity:

The biggest problem we face right now in the JFK research community are the legions of "old guard" researchers who refuse to face this fact [that the Z-film has been fabricated] and who stubbornly cling to some piece of "bedrock evidence", which in their mind will lead them out of the wilderness if only they study it long enough and can divine its true meaning. For Thompson, Wrone, Weisberg, Groden, and may others, the Zapruder film has been this piece of bedrock evidence for over four decades. I say to the old guard who have continued to insist that the Zapruder film is an authentic and unaltered film in spite of the mounting evidence of its alteration, "Come on over, and see the light." You will feel better for having done so--in fact, it will liberate you. Once you accept the fact that the Zapruder film is a clever (but imperfect) forgery, you are free suddenly to believe the Dealey Plaza car stop witnesses (which include several Dallas motorcycle policemen and Bill Newman); Marily Sitzman; the Kodak laboratory personnel (who all say the original film was slit the evening of the assassination); Marilyn Willis; Erwin Schwartz; Cartha DeLoach; Dan Rather; and the Parkland doctors and nurses. For if you believe the Zapruder film is authentic, you must, of necessity, believe that all of these people are either liars, or incompetent and unreliable witnesses.

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."

In complete opposition to J. Raymond Carroll, I assert that, if this had been the only contribution of Doug Horne's research toward a better understanding of the assassination of JFK and its cover up, it would have been worth the price of the volume by itself! I am completely and utterly in awe and admiration for his painstaking efforts and meticulous research on the most controversial aspects of the case, where I believe that it has become impossible to deny that the film is a fabrication and that the cover up cannot be understood --even remotely!--without rejecting the blindfold extended by Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, Gary Mack, Rollie Zavada and their chums and allies, who have held back major advances in research on the basis of their misconceived objections to the alteration of the film. I therefore agree with Bill Kelly in his belief that "the corner has been turned" in relation to the question of Zapruder film alteration. Jack White, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton and I have known it for some time, but there is no substitute for a presentation that anyone with the capacity for objectivity can comprehend! For that--and for his diligence, his dedication, his intelligence, his self-sacrifice, and his professionalism--I congratulate him!

QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Nov 17 2009, 12:17 PM)

QUOTE (William Kelly @ Nov 17 2009, 10:30 AM)

Inside the Assassinations Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK

By Douglas P. Horne

Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassinations Records Review Board

Table of Contents

Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery p. 1185

Based on his interview with Dick Russell, my advice to Doug is to leave out this chapter entirely.

By his own admission, it is highly speculative. As such, its inclusion could seriously undermine the credibility of the book.

Instead he could just publish it on the Mary Ferrell site as a speculative article.

After all, its not as though the book will be TOO SHORT if this chapter is omitted.

And its not as though the book will not be CONTROVERSIAL enough if this chapter is omitted.

I’ve been scratching my head trying to figure out what is new in this discussion of Doug Horne’s interviews at NPIC. We know from the Phillips receipt that the Secret Service received a first-generation copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas at 9:30 PM on Friday, November 22nd. We also know that that copy was immediately flown to Washington, D.C. It would be natural for the Secret Service to both make additional copies in Washington and send an agent over to NPIC with the photo material. The first generation copy flown to Washington would have had no images in the intersprocket area.

What we know independently comports well with what Ben Hunter tells us. He worked on the film at NPIC most likely on Saturday, November 23rd. The film he worked on had no intersprocket images and hence was a copy not the original. It showed what the published the Zapruder film shows. The film was brought to NPIC by a Secret Service agent but the name “Bill Smith” does not ring a bell for him as the name of the agent. He assumed the film was processed by Kodak in Rochester but did not recall being told this explicitly.

Still, I look forward to reading what Doug Horne has to say. What he has to say about the medical evidence will be especially intriguing. I’ve ordered all five parts of his work. Here are the relevant parts of Doug Horne’s interview reports. They’ve been around for about ten years:

Meeting Report

Document’s Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 06/18/97

Date of Meeting: 06/17/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter interviewed by Doug Horne, Jeremy Gunn, Dave Montague and Michelle Combs

He recalled that he and Homer McMahon worked with the Zapruder film very shortly after the assassination in 1963, just 2 or 3 days afterwards. At another point, he said it may have been the next day (Saturday) or Sunday, November 24, and he thought it was prior to the funeral of President Kennedy. He recalled that no one else from the NPIC (other than he and Homer McMahon) was in the building, which means it was almost certainly the weekend of the assassination; he also recalled that he had to drive from home to do this job, and that he was not already at work when the project was assigned.

His memories of film content were limited to seeing a skull explosion, bone fragments and Jackie crawling on the trunk of the car. Apparently to those involved that night the film was only referred to as a “home movie,” but he seemed convinced that it was the Zapruder film based on subsequent viewings of it over the years...

His impression is that the film was probably 16 mm. format, but was not of an 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 described the film as “not high resolution.”

Meeting Report

Document Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 8/14/97

Date of Meeting: 8/14/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter, Homer McMahon, Doug Horne and Jim Goslee

I asked both men if they still recalled that their 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 second night after the assassination (i.e. Saturday night).

Homer McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester, and the copies of it were made in Rochester also, and he personally 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 at Rochester,” but did not independently recall that himself.

Homer McMahon recalled that Captain Sands was a Navy Captain who was one of the duty officers at NPIC; Bennett Hunter never did recall the name “Bill Smith” (the Secret Service agent remembered by McMahon), even after discussing the matter with McMahon.

Josiah Thompson

Jim...your summary is FANTASTIC. It is obvious that none of the ones

you mention has read Horne IV.

I am appreciative that Bill Kelly obtained the volume, read it, and switched

from being a doubter to a Horne believer. It proves that someone of

intelligence, when seeing Horne's meticulous documentation, should

no longer consider the Z film as evidence in the case. Just it opposite...

the provable fabrication of the Zfilm RAISES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

OF WHY WAS IT FABRICATED...AND BY WHOM.

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

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..

Edited December 26, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Dean Hagerman]

In appreciation to Bill Kelly, who has made valuable contributions to this thread, I would observe that my response to the early comment of J. Raymond Carroll applies to these remarks from Josiah Thompson, who has obviously adopted the twin strategies of (1) insisting that all of this (in Doug Horne's massive new book, which I am confident he has not read, just as he never read any of my three books but reviewed them nevertheless) is "old news" and (2) employing the method of selection and elimination by selecting only the evidence that supports his predetermined point of view and ignoring the rest (which is becoming increasingly difficult to practice, since the evidence for film fabrication has become massive). Observe how he neglects to mention that Horne has now completely destroyed the backbone of Josiah's defense, the alleged chain-of-custody argument or that film restoration experts, confronted with a large-scale version of the film, were appalled at the amateur fashion in which it had been altered. Read from this post, which appeared earlier on this thread, and appreciate that, not only does Josiah not read books, he doesn't read threads, either. He turns out to be as phony as the film.

This is a nice example of someone who has been out-of-touch with research on the authenticity of the Zapruder film, which has been proceeding at a rapid clip since the symposium on the film I organized and moderated at the Lancer Conference in 1996. Since the film has been used as the backbone of the cover up from its inception--including the creation of the "blob" of brains bulging forward, the missing right-front cranial mass from the x-rays, the caption for frame 313 in LIFE magazine describing how the direction of the shot was determined by the study of the film, and Abraham Zapruder's appearance on television that evening, using his had to show a blow-out to the right-front that did not occur--it would have been extremely unfortunate had Doug Horne followed the advice of J. Raymond Carroll and suppressed his research on the film. Indeed, one of the great virtues of Vol. IV is its exposure of film fakery.

Let me say that Doug Horne has been extremely generous in acknowledging the previous work by Jack White, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, and David Lifton, who are those who have made the most important contributions to establishing that the Z-film has been recreated. After all, anyone who takes for granted that the film is authentic--as have generations of students of the crime in generations past--will be unable to reconstruct what actually happened in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, since some events--such as William Greer bringing the limousine to a halt to make certain JFK would be killed, Motorcycle Patrolman Cheney's motoring forward to advise Chief Curry that he had been shot, and Mary Moorman and Jean Hill's stepping into the street to take Mary's famous Polariod--have been removed, while other events--such as the bulging "blob", the blood spray, and the passengers being thrown forward WHILE THE LIMO WAS ACCELERATING--have been added in. Horne's studies reinforce these discoveries.

I especially like the manner in which Doug Horne encourages other students of JFK to abandon their long-held but provably-false belief in Zapruder film authenticity:

The biggest problem we face right now in the JFK research community are the legions of "old guard" researchers who refuse to face this fact [that the Z-film has been fabricated] and who stubbornly cling to some piece of "bedrock evidence", which in their mind will lead them out of the wilderness if only they study it long enough and can divine its true meaning. For Thompson, Wrone, Weisberg, Groden, and may others, the Zapruder film has been this piece of bedrock evidence for over four decades. I say to the old guard who have continued to insist that the Zapruder film is an authentic and unaltered film in spite of the mounting evidence of its alteration, "Come on over, and see the light." You will feel better for having done so--in fact, it will liberate you. Once you accept the fact that the Zapruder film is a clever (but imperfect) forgery, you are free suddenly to believe the Dealey Plaza car stop witnesses (which include several Dallas motorcycle policemen and Bill Newman); Marily Sitzman; the Kodak laboratory personnel (who all say the original film was slit the evening of the assassination); Marilyn Willis; Erwin Schwartz; Cartha DeLoach; Dan Rather; and the Parkland doctors and nurses. For if you believe the Zapruder film is authentic, you must, of necessity, believe that all of these people are either liars, or incompetent and unreliable witnesses.

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."

In complete opposition to J. Raymond Carroll, I assert that, if this had been the only contribution of Doug Horne's research toward a better understanding of the assassination of JFK and its cover up, it would have been worth the price of the volume by itself! I am completely and utterly in awe and admiration for his painstaking efforts and meticulous research on the most controversial aspects of the case, where I believe that it has become impossible to deny that the film is a fabrication and that the cover up cannot be understood --even remotely!--without rejecting the blindfold extended by Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, Gary Mack, Rollie Zavada and their chums and allies, who have held back major advances in research on the basis of their misconceived objections to the alteration of the film. I therefore agree with Bill Kelly in his belief that "the corner has been turned" in relation to the question of Zapruder film alteration. Jack White, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton and I have known it for some time, but there is no substitute for a presentation that anyone with the capacity for objectivity can comprehend! For that--and for his diligence, his dedication, his intelligence, his self-sacrifice, and his professionalism--I congratulate him!

QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Nov 17 2009, 12:17 PM)

QUOTE (William Kelly @ Nov 17 2009, 10:30 AM)

Inside the Assassinations Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK

By Douglas P. Horne

Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassinations Records Review Board

Table of Contents

Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery p. 1185

Based on his interview with Dick Russell, my advice to Doug is to leave out this chapter entirely.

By his own admission, it is highly speculative. As such, its inclusion could seriously undermine the credibility of the book.

Instead he could just publish it on the Mary Ferrell site as a speculative article.

After all, its not as though the book will be TOO SHORT if this chapter is omitted.

And its not as though the book will not be CONTROVERSIAL enough if this chapter is omitted.

I’ve been scratching my head trying to figure out what is new in this discussion of Doug Horne’s interviews at NPIC. We know from the Phillips receipt that the Secret Service received a first-generation copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas at 9:30 PM on Friday, November 22nd. We also know that that copy was immediately flown to Washington, D.C. It would be natural for the Secret Service to both make additional copies in Washington and send an agent over to NPIC with the photo material. The first generation copy flown to Washington would have had no images in the intersprocket area.

What we know independently comports well with what Ben Hunter tells us. He worked on the film at NPIC most likely on Saturday, November 23rd. The film he worked on had no intersprocket images and hence was a copy not the original. It showed what the published the Zapruder film shows. The film was brought to NPIC by a Secret Service agent but the name “Bill Smith” does not ring a bell for him as the name of the agent. He assumed the film was processed by Kodak in Rochester but did not recall being told this explicitly.

Still, I look forward to reading what Doug Horne has to say. What he has to say about the medical evidence will be especially intriguing. I’ve ordered all five parts of his work. Here are the relevant parts of Doug Horne’s interview reports. They’ve been around for about ten years:

Meeting Report

Document’s Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 06/18/97

Date of Meeting: 06/17/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter interviewed by Doug Horne, Jeremy Gunn, Dave Montague and Michelle Combs

He recalled that he and Homer McMahon worked with the Zapruder film very shortly after the assassination in 1963, just 2 or 3 days afterwards. At another point, he said it may have been the next day (Saturday) or Sunday, November 24, and he thought it was prior to the funeral of President Kennedy. He recalled that no one else from the NPIC (other than he and Homer McMahon) was in the building, which means it was almost certainly the weekend of the assassination; he also recalled that he had to drive from home to do this job, and that he was not already at work when the project was assigned.

His memories of film content were limited to seeing a skull explosion, bone fragments and Jackie crawling on the trunk of the car. Apparently to those involved that night the film was only referred to as a “home movie,” but he seemed convinced that it was the Zapruder film based on subsequent viewings of it over the years...

His impression is that the film was probably 16 mm. format, but was not of an 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 described the film as “not high resolution.”

Meeting Report

Document Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 8/14/97

Date of Meeting: 8/14/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter, Homer McMahon, Doug Horne and Jim Goslee

I asked both men if they still recalled that their 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 second night after the assassination (i.e. Saturday night).

Homer McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester, and the copies of it were made in Rochester also, and he personally 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 at Rochester,” but did not independently recall that himself.

Homer McMahon recalled that Captain Sands was a Navy Captain who was one of the duty officers at NPIC; Bennett Hunter never did recall the name “Bill Smith” (the Secret Service agent remembered by McMahon), even after discussing the matter with McMahon.

Josiah Thompson

Jim...your summary is FANTASTIC. It is obvious that none of the ones

you mention has read Horne IV.

I am appreciative that Bill Kelly obtained the volume, read it, and switched

from being a doubter to a Horne believer. It proves that someone of

intelligence, when seeing Horne's meticulous documentation, should

no longer consider the Z film as evidence in the case. Just it opposite...

the provable fabrication of the Zfilm RAISES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

OF WHY WAS IT FABRICATED...AND BY WHOM.

Jack

I second that! Great summary Jim

From the time I finished reading "Bloody Treason" back in 1997 until the present day I have believed in alteration 100%

I hope long time believers in the Z-film being authentic will see the light and come over to our side as Jim said

Edited December 26, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Bernice Moore]

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

Doug Horne replies to Gary Mack..b