Doug Horne

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well stated, Bill Kelly! I could not have said it better myself. My interview with Doug Horne has already been posted at Oracle:

http://www.oraclebroadcasting.com/archives...ericanawakening

5 Newest Shows:

Saturday, December 26, 2009 16kbps On Demand M3U / Mobile Torrent email episode

Jim Fetzer, guest host, interviews Douglas Horne, the senior analysis for military affairs for the Assassination Records

Review Board, who has just published a five-volume study of what he learned about the death of J.F.K.

Saturday, December 19, 2009 16kbps On Demand M3U / Mobile Torrent email episode

Jim Fetzer, Guest Host for Michael Herzog on "American Awakening", David Lifton on JFK, 1st hour; Paul Craig Roberts on

Obama, 2nd; 4-6 PM/CT; Oracle Broadcasting Network.

The hour-long interview with David Lifton on the 19th, incidentally, revolved around Doug Horne's work. Both were excellent!

Jim

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

[William Kelly]

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

Welcome to the fray Dr. JC, though I don't know if you can avoid the flames after you jump in the fire. More clear minds and voices are needed.

BK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

John Costella has confirmed that the "blue scarf" criticism directed at Doug Horne is well-founded. When we are wrong, we are going to admit it. I would be gratified to have a similar response from the other side, but I know them all too well to expect anything of that kind. It would be very impressive if they were to concede, for example, that the chain-of-custody argument has been refuted, which is very clearly and obviously the case. But I am confident that there's not much chance of that!

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

Edited December 27, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

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

Well deano, there is no "Craig Bandwagon" ...there is only the photographic truth bandwagon. You should rethink your riding the "alteration" bandwagon.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

John Costella has confirmed that the "blue scarf" criticism directed at Doug Horne is well-founded. When we are wrong, we are going to admit it. I would be gratified to have a similar response from the other side, but I know them all too well to expect anything of that kind. It would be very impressive if they were to concede, for example, that the chain-of-custody argument has been refuted, which is very clearly and obviously the case. But I am confident that there's not much chance of that!

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

I'm MORE than happy to admit my errors, in fact its the very basis of learning.

However Horne's chain of custody argument appears as broken as his Blue Scarf claims. Expressing speculation as fact proves nothing.

[Bernice Moore]

I think what Craig has exposed is more than a small factoid, it's more like a major unrepairable rupture.

Hi Duncan and a very merry season to you and yours...now i realize you have not released your findings in a book up till the present time.that others can pick apart looking for errors instead of information that is of value....but are you not being somewhat too harsh here i take it after what john posted and you replied your meaning may be that a possible error by Doug warrants not reading his valued information set out in 5 books after 12 years of deep study and over 3 years of being involved with the arrb...huh...i hope i have this wrong on your mind set here..i recall some terribly harsh times that you went through particularly for months on end at lancer re your pergolaman studies..as well as others..you set forth..even through all some still stood by you..when the errors were shown their attitude was not yours..to simply throw you and your work aside...i am surprised you seem to have so easily forgotten those times...and lessons learnt..that dragged on and on....as others presented harshly their found errors within..your work .in return and continually..trashing your honest efforts...is it pay back now perhaps on some one who was not involved i hate to even suggest that as that is not the man i knew...as each error was revealed within your work..there were some who felt that the basics of your work had merit in the studies of the alterations and conspiracys that you so fully believed in ..Idid KNOW YOU AND I KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE A SHORT MEMORY...sorry caps...what you suggest now is throwing the baby out with the bathwater...that as we know never pans out...there is much extremely valuable information within doug's valuable set of books...If one wants to stay up on the most recent information available so they can at least follow along on the forums..and perhaps contribute..and they will not be wearing blinders they will avail themselves of the information, if not.. then it is their sorry loss...do you not think even the .LNRS are not, have not and will not be reading such, not all but so many are and will be..do not be behind any of you peoples out there....read get up to date and join in..this all is a very fascinating study the latest do not leave yourselves in the dark...why now would anyone want to is beyond me and stay out of the latest after 46 years and wear blinders makes absolutely no sense...imo..always remember all that what goes around comes around none are infallible so watch your step your next error that is pointed out may be the harshest coming back..we all make them i have made zillions and i will continue..so do you who are reading this, if not you are not human... all take care and thanks for your time..best b..all chin up...carry on...

Edited December 27, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

Doug Horne replies to Gary Mack..b

Thank you, Ms. Moore. This was much more interesting than reading the usual back-and-forth crapping between the (alleged) two opposition parties here.

"(5) Finally, and pehaps most important, seven (7) out of seven (7) Hollywood film professionals who have examined the HD and 6K scans of the individual frames of the Zapruder film 35 mm dupe negative (obtained from the National Archives) have declared the image content to have been altered: they are of the unanimous opinion that the back of JFK's head in the images---from frame 313 through 337---has been blacked out, i.e., obscured by artwork. Their opinions trump those of anyone in the research community who has not been to film school, and who has not worked in the post-production of motion picture films. I published two illustrations of frame 317 to illustrate this point, but due to the limitations of the printing plant I employed, my book only contains black and white illustrations on non-glossy paper; therfore, the resolution of these two illustrations of frame 317 is not all that I would wish. The color HD and 6K scans of the blacked-out back of the head (particularly frames 313, 317, 321, and 323) are truly stunning, when viewed on high-definition monitors; at the appropriate time in 2010, there will be a public rollout of these images by the Hollywood research group, and the world will be stunned. Seeing is believing, and when these images are publicly released, all of those who have minds open to evidence will understand, and believe, that the extant Zapruder film's image content has been tampered with, to obscure the exit wound behind President Kennedy's right ear seen by the Dallas doctors and nurses at Parkland hospital....

"So...everyone interested in this debate should take a deep breath, relax, and await further developments."

quote The color HD and 6K scans of the blacked-out back of the head (particularly frames 313, 317, 321, and 323) are truly stunning, when viewed on high-definition monitors; at the appropriate time in 2010, there will be a public rollout of these images by the Hollywood research group, and the world will be stunned. Seeing is believing, and when these images are publicly released, all of those who have minds open to evidence will understand, and believe, that the extant Zapruder film's image content has been tampered with, to obscure the exit wound behind President Kennedy's right ear seen by the Dallas doctors and nurses at Parkland hospital....

"So...everyone interested in this debate should take a deep breath, relax, and await further developments."

your very welcome daniel..thank you for your input i have seen the blackouts in some frames myself in the past as presented by others on the web, and i fully agree just wait and see what's coming..those who stay up on all that is will be able to keep up and take part and those who wish not to then after not doing so..they spout off..well who is going to bother reading let alone listen not i .nor many others..it's like they will and are cutting their noses off to spite their faces and or forums..that's the fall back manys a time...take care best b...

Edited December 27, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Bill Kelly i think you were wanting these unless you have by now found them best b..the npic board studies what's available at m/fs they are in the Rockefeller studies...NARA Record Number: 178-10002-10376

NPIC ANALYSIS OF ZAPRUDER FILMING OF JFK ASSASSINATION

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

b..

Edited December 27, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[William Kelly]

Bill Kelly i think you were wanting these unless you have by now found them best b..the npic board studies what's available at m/fs they are in the Rockefeller studies...NARA Record Number: 178-10002-10376

NPIC ANALYSIS OF ZAPRUDER FILMING OF JFK ASSASSINATION

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

b..

Hi B.,

Yes, these are the notes that Paul Hoch called attention to years ago.

I had not seen them. Thanks.

Homer McMahon recognized some of it as his handwriting.

BK

David Lifton from POAL:

CIA 450: Discovery by Paul Hoch

Around March, 1976, JFK researcher Paul Hoch, perusing a batch of recently released CIA documents, discovered CIA item 450, a multi-page document with data arranged in tabular form, apparently devoted to an analysis of the Zapruder film and the creation of certain briefing materials requiring that 28 color photos be made from selected frames of a Kodachrome positive of the Zapruder film. CIA 450 established that "the film"—we'll discuss just "which film" (or copy) it was—had been at the National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, shortly after the assassination. NPIC is one of the most sophisticated photo labs in the world, and played a major role in processing and interpreting U-2 spyplane films that played such a significant role in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Prior to Hoch's discovery, there was no reason to connect the Z film with NPIC.

The document apparently described the contents of four briefing boards — labeled "Panel 1", "Panel 2" "Panel 3" and "Panel 4", each consisting of between six and eight Zapruder frames, for a total of 28 frames. The prints, distributed amongst the four boards, were numbered from 1 through 28. (See "Appendix C, and the item titled "NPIC Typed Summary for Preparing a Briefing Board.") These briefing boards were apparently used to illustrate some kind of presentation. Another sheet—apparently on legal size paper, again, with the same 28 frame numbers arrayed in multiple columns—was a shot and timing analysis, i.e., notes explaining the assassination in terms of several different 3 shot scenarios. One of these was labeled "Life Magazine" and the others were simply labeled "Other possibilities." In the Life column, two terse phrases used to describe the time intervals between shots –"74 frames later" and "48 frames after that" (each listed along with quotation marks)—were identical with phrases used in LIFE writer Paul Mandel's article, "End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds," which appeared in two issues of LIFE—the 6 December 1963 issue, and the "JFK Memorial Issue" published on 7 December 63. Was the CIA supplying Life with data? Or did the agency have the film later on, and was it reading Life for its information. (See Appendix C, item titled "NPIC working notes related to a shot sequence analysis") Whatever the exact explanation, suffice it to say that previously unreported CIA possession of the Zapruder film was an important discovery. It raised the question of whether the CIA had the film prior to or in connection with, its sale to LIFE.

The ARRB

Whether you agree with Garrison or not (and I did not), the most enduring consequence of the movie JFK was the passage of the JFK Records Act and the creation of the ARRB. When the board was first created, I was invited to the "expert's conference" and met David Marwell and Jeremy Gunn for the first time. I learned that both had read my book but took different positions on questions of authencity of the evidence. Marwell, a friend of Posner, leaned more towards the "lone nutter" position; Jeremy Gunn seemed more open to such ideas as alteration of the body, Zapruder film inauthenticity, etc.—which is not to say his beliefs accorded with mine in these areas, just that he seemed open to having such matters investigated.

Meanwhile, in what was a major break for me, Douglas Horne, a former Naval officer who was a strong supporter of my work, applied from Honolulu for a position with the ARRB and was accepted. Horne eventually became "Chief Analyst for Military Records"—a fairly high position at the ARRB—and his presence on the staff along with his dogged determination to further investigate many of the mysteries surrounding the autopsy, had a definite effect in shaping the ARRB's work in the medical area. New documents were located, witnesses whom I had interviewed were called to testify, and since the ARRB wanted to see some of my own materials, I had quite a bit of contact with the ARRB, often with Horne, but also with Marwell and Gunn....

....Meanwhile, the Board decided it was going to need expert assistance if it was to navigate the sticky wicket of certain film issues. The Board turned to Kodak for assistance. There are several matters that must be discussed—if only briefly—if one is to get a birds-eye view of the ARRB's work in the area of the bystander films taken in Dealey Plaza. Not necessarily in chronological order, they are:

• The ARRB and CIA Document 450;

• The ARRB deposition of Robert Groden;

• The ARRB and the matter of designating the Z film as an "assassination

record";

• The ARRB's attempt to deal with the matter of authenticity;

• Zavada's investigation of the camera's "claw shadow", which led to his

shooting certain test films

• Doug Horne's discovery, from Zavada's data, of the "full flush left" problem

in May 1999, six months after the Board closed shop.

The ARRB and CIA Document 450

The reader will recall that back around 1976, Paul Hoch made the discovery of CIA Document 450, which suggested—at first sight—that the Zapruder film had gone to the CIA's National Photo Interpretation Center, prior to going to Life. Initially, the issue seemed to be whether NPIC had anything to do with processing the Zapruder film—which, if so, seemed rather peculiar, since the film had already been processed at the Kodak plant in Dallas. So that in turn, led to various hypotheses as to whether the NPIC photo lab in Washington perhaps had something to do with altering the film, altering the Zapruder film and the issue was whether it went in its pristine condition, and was then altered or went there after it had been altered and if so, what was it doing at NPIC?

As it turned out, nothing of the kind was so. Two CIA employees were located who had been at NPIC—Homer McMahon, head of the NPIC color lab, and his assistant Ben Hunter—and the story behind the creation of the NPIC documents, which at first appeared so mysterious—gradually clarified. The documents had nothing to do with the creation of a movie film, but rather with the processed of some 28 selected frames from a film positive (indeed, a 16 mm Kodachrome, supposedly the "original") which was brought to NPIC — either on Saturday or Sunday night on the assassination weekend — by a Secret Service agent who said he had just come from Rochester, from a classified film facility there run by Kodak, and where the Kodachrome he was transporting had been processed. The agent's name was "Smith", the ARRB was never able to identify who "Smith" was, and the events described by McMahon definitely took place (according to McMahon) prior to the JFK's funeral, which would mean either Saturday night or Sunday night. The NPIC lab was requested to make color prints from selected single frames — supposedly for use in creating briefing boards. Twenty-eight frames were selected (according to the McMahon paperwork). Moreover, said McMahon, Agent Smith had said the entire matter was to be treated as "higher than 'top secret'" and even his own supervisor was not permitted to know about this activity.

The ARRB interviews established that the film—as a motion picture film—had not been processed at NPIC in Washington, and that a series of notations about processing times and the number of prints to be made had nothing to do with motion picture photography, but the creation of a series of 28 color prints from selected motion picture film frames. Although that mystery was resolved, the McMahon account raised serious questions about the chain of possession of the original film. That film — a 16 mm Kodachrome (with the assassination on Side had been processed in Dallas, at Kodak, on the afternoon of the assassination. Further, it had left Zapruder's possession on Saturday morning, when he made his initial deal with LIFE (in the amount of $50,000) and then turned over "the original" plus his third copy to LIFE representative Stolly. Yet here was McMahon, reporting that Agent Smith had arrived with a Kodachrome, saying he had come from Rochester, and the film he was carrying had been processed at "Hawkeyeworks."

Since the briefing boards prepared with McMahon's stills carry Zapruder frame numbers which are apparently from the film which (today) we call "the Zapruder film," the question arises as to whether the source item was the Kodachrome which McMahon was working with for several hours that long night, and just what was its origin. The Zapruder film—i.e., the actual Kodachrome film exposed in Zapruder's camera — had been processed at the Kodak plant in Dallas. Kodachrome requireda very special processing plant. There were only some half dozen such Kodachrome facilities in the U.S., and the question had been: where could a Kodachrome copy of Zapruder's film — i.e. a Kodachrome which would subsequently be paraded about as an original, but which was in fact a copy — have been processed? Certainly not in Dallas. Now a new possibility was emerging: that a Kodachrome processor was located either at Kodak's headquarters in Rochester or at Hawkeyeworks, and that's where the Kodachrome brought to MacMahon might have been processed.

McMahon was certain he had an original. From Horne's ARRB Report: Horne asked whether he was working with the original film or a copy, and McMahon stated with some certainty tht he was "sure we had the original film." Horne asked why,and he said that he was sure it was the original because it was Kodachrome, and because it was a "double 8"movie. Horne asked him to clarify whether the home movie was slit or unslit, and McMahon said that he was pretty sure the film was UNSLIT, because "we had to flip it over to see the image on the other side in the correct orientation. (Horne Call Report, 6/12/97; See Appendix C)There was another twist: what happened when Doug wanted to pursue the matter, pull 1963 records, and question people as to whether the Z film had been at Rochester. His requests were simply refused—flatly refused—and without explanation. Moreover, from multiple sources, I learned what occurred when the CIA found out that the word "Hawkeyeworks"—a classified term—had been mentioned by one of its employees in an ARRB interview: the order went out to change the record. The ARRB was notified that the name was still classified, so it would have to be expunged. Doug was given the job of editing the audio tape record of the interview, and deleting any mention of the secret facility by its classified codename. This he did, writing the appropriate memo to make the fact a matter of record.

The ARRB's Final Report accurately reported the important fact that what was done in Washington, D.C., at NPIC's color lab, was simply the creation of color stills, but left out the related drama of Hawkeyeworks and the CIA's insistence that the term be deleted. The Final Report said:Review Board Staff's Study and Clarification of Paul Hoch's FOIA Lead "CIA Document 450." The Review Board staff located and interviewed two former employees of the CIA' s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) and questioned them about " C I A Document 450," a 1970s Freedom Of Information Act release-original document undated-that indicates NPIC had a version of the Zapruder film, made "internegatives" and "copies," conducted a "print test," and performed a shot-and-timing analysis based on interpretation of the film's content.

Edited December 27, 2009 by William Kelly

[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

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.

Lamson's phony test compares apples and oranges. He uses a tabletop setup. It is not comparable

to the scene in Dealey Plaza, where the sign is in the foreground, the woman is in the background,

and the limo is farther in the distance and is moving. Further, he does not even use a small point

of the woman's blue scarf but uses a large flat blue surface. If he presented his example as legal

evidence, he would be laughed out of court. His table top experiment may fool some, but it does

nothing that simulates the Z film.

He also does not address the obvious blur of the stationary sign and the relative sharpness of the

head of the woman. He takes a phony photo and expresses phony opinions and mindless sycophants

chime in unison...great work!

Jack

[Jack White]

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.

I have no idea why I am being referenced by Burton. I have not called anyone here

a xxxx. I may have called Marina Oswald a xxxx, but she is a historical figure and not

a member of this group.

I have just read a posting by Lamson in which he calls Dr. Fetzer a village idiot.

Is that permissible?

Jack

[Jack White]

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.

<snip>

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

ANYONE who disagrees with Fetzer is someone to be looked on suspiciously, and that is ridiculous. Instead of debating with them, they are to be looked out for.

Aside from some of the far out statements in the alteration camp, there is a more obvious problem--their spokesmodel.

That is why folks are raving about Doug Horne, and are considering what he has written--he at least is more of a gentleman.

What on earth is this about? Dr. Fetzer's writings are a model of critical thinking. Why are you, A MODERATOR, attacking

him as not being a gentleman?

Jack

[Jack White]

John Costella has confirmed that the "blue scarf" criticism directed at Doug Horne is well-founded. When we are wrong, we are going to admit it. I would be gratified to have a similar response from the other side, but I know them all too well to expect anything of that kind. It would be very impressive if they were to concede, for example, that the chain-of-custody argument has been refuted, which is very clearly and obviously the case. But I am confident that there's not much chance of that!

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

Jim...Horne MAY be in error...BUT Lamson's phony study in no way invalidates Horne. We are supposed to

receive Lamson's pronouncements as gifts from heaven, no matter how flawed his studies. His table top test

is in no way similar to the Z frame. There is no documentation of how and why his demonstration proves

anything. It is unscientific. I am in favor of SCIENTIFIC tests to make such determinations, but Lamson's

is anything but scientific.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is most interesting, Jack. I like your rebuttal. I will send it along to John and see what he thinks upon reflection. Many thanks! Jim

John Costella has confirmed that the "blue scarf" criticism directed at Doug Horne is well-founded. When we are wrong, we are going to admit it. I would be gratified to have a similar response from the other side, but I know them all too well to expect anything of that kind. It would be very impressive if they were to concede, for example, that the chain-of-custody argument has been refuted, which is very clearly and obviously the case. But I am confident that there's not much chance of that!

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

Jim...Horne MAY be in error...BUT Lamson's phony study in no way invalidates Horne. We are supposed to

receive Lamson's pronouncements as gifts from heaven, no matter how flawed his studies. His table top test

is in no way similar to the Z frame. There is no documentation of how and why his demonstration proves

anything. It is unscientific. I am in favor of SCIENTIFIC tests to make such determinations, but Lamson's

is anything but scientific.

Jack

[Jack White]

This is most interesting, Jack. I like your rebuttal. I will send it along to John and see what he thinks upon reflection. Many thanks! Jim

John Costella has confirmed that the "blue scarf" criticism directed at Doug Horne is well-founded. When we are wrong, we are going to admit it. I would be gratified to have a similar response from the other side, but I know them all too well to expect anything of that kind. It would be very impressive if they were to concede, for example, that the chain-of-custody argument has been refuted, which is very clearly and obviously the case. But I am confident that there's not much chance of that!

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

Jim...Horne MAY be in error...BUT Lamson's phony study in no way invalidates Horne. We are supposed to

receive Lamson's pronouncements as gifts from heaven, no matter how flawed his studies. His table top test

is in no way similar to the Z frame. There is no documentation of how and why his demonstration proves

anything. It is unscientific. I am in favor of SCIENTIFIC tests to make such determinations, but Lamson's

is anything but scientific.

Jack

Jim...I have been studying the "blue scarf frame" for some 15 minutes. Lamson may be correct about the

LIGHTER scarf color washing out the DARKER sign color...BUT he is overlooking the motion blur factor.

Where the blue scarf meets the edge of the sign shows little or no panning blur, the POST ON THE SIGN

IS BLURRED to nearly 50% of its width. The EDGE of the sign ought to show similar panning blur. It does not.

Jack

Edited December 27, 2009 by Jack White