Doug Horne

[Craig Lamson]

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

Doug Horne replies to Gary Mack..b

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

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

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

and dedication to truth.

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

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

Jack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Great old wize one ( or is that great old moron?)...please explain, in detail why any of your pronouncment means squat. Or is hte concept of photographic exposure simply beyond your meager knowlege base when it comes to photography?

Further, he does not even use a small pointof 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.

Again please explain why a small point will behave in a different manner than a flat surface in regards tot he principle of double exposure and blurring? Details please.

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

head of the woman.

Please explain in detail exactly what frames...190, 191,192, 195 or 197 show the head showing blur that is inconsistant with the sign blur.

He takes a phony photo

Please prove the my very simple proof of concept photo is phony...in detail

and expresses phony opinions

Please show me exactly WHERE I have expressed OPINION (unlike cold, hard fact) as it relates to my simple proof of concept demonstration. Details please.

and mindless sycophants

chime in unison...great work!

I'm quite glad to know you consider both Fetzer and Costella top be mindless sycophants. I'll keep that in mind next time you pimp them and their work.

Jack

Craig

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And, of course, as I pointed out in HOAX (2003) and in "Dealey Plaza Revisited" (2009), you can actually see the blow out to the back of his head in frames later in the sequence, such as Z-frame 374, which is included in my public presentations. See, for example, those on my new blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. John has prepared the best set of copies of the film, which can be found on http://assassinationscience.com, in case anyone does not already know. And his tutorial on the fabrication of the film is also archived there at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ for those who need to catch "up to speed" on evidence of Zapruder film fabrication. Anti-alterationists live in denial.

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 myslf in the past as presented by others on the web, and i fully agree just wait and see what's coming..those to stay up on all that is those who wish not to then when again 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 cut their nose 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 James H. Fetzer

[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

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

Exactly how much does a "photographic expert" as you like to bill yourself need to do a simple test?

DO you need someone to take you by the hand and walk you through it?

Ok..fine here is the documentation.

1. Take a mousepad and lean it against a subwoofer, bottom side out. Yamaha is the prefered brand of subwoofer, as it provides superior support for the mousepad than lesser brands.

2. Place an Adobe Photoshop CS4 dvd case, on it's side behind the box. DO NOT use the dvd case from the movie "Animal House" as it resembles the 'alterationists" and will warp the test results.

3. Open the window shades a bit to let in some light. This is also good advice in general for alterationists.

4. Take your camera (your choice as long as you can manually set ther shutter speed) and choose a slow shutter speed, something in the range of 1 second to 1/60th of a second. Any within that range will do.

5. Sit in a swivel office chair. Please note this is very important to the test. We don't want you falling over while you perform the work.

6. Spin in your office chair as and as your lens passes the intersection of the box and dvd case, take a picture.

7. Rinse

8. Repete

9. Inspect your photographs.

10. Reshoot as required, changing the spin of your office chair to vary the amount of blur.

Happy now Jacko? Thats as scientific as you will ever understand.

Now please tell us in detail why this test is unscientific and why the basic photographic principles of exposure and double exposure presented in the test is not exactly like what we see in Zapruder. Inquiring minds really want to know.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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

Again we need more than "ought to" even more so since its coming from an ignorant so called "photo expert" who just got his clock handed to him.

Details please, along with some of that "scientific testing" you seem to love so much.

Or pull that tail back between your legs and scurry along....your call.

[Bernice Moore]

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

Evan a couple of questions for a moderator why is Craig Lamson allowed to call Jack a moron in his latest post 451 i believe it is..or is his nasty bad habit of callling derogatory names to be allowed all through this thread as they have been allowed through many others..also if and for fos it is fair the mods are allowed their opinions also, are they not to be none biased seeing they are moderators..thanks..b

Edited December 27, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

OK, Lamson. I'll bite. Since you have characterized me in a fashion that, in my opinion, fits you far better, I will see if I can cope with one of your arguments, while challenging you to cope with one of mine. Let's start with your argument related to the "blue scarf". I note that only black and white photographs appear in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), so obviously you cannot have based your argument about the color of scarfs based upon photos found there. What I want to know is (1) where is the argument you are attacking to be found and precisely what does it say; (2) what is wrong with the argument and how do you know; and (3) how could an independent experiment be conducted that would confirm or disconfirm your criticism? I am perfectly willing to concede if Doug has made a mistake, as I have already shown.

By way of reciprocation, I want to know how you reconcile Zapruder film authenticity with (1) the "blob" that is blown out to the right-front; (2) the LIFE Magazine caption claiming that frame 313 establishes the direction from which the shots were fired; and (3) the missing mass to the right front of the autopsy X-rays? These appear to be three mutually-reinforcing fabrications of the evidence, where Roderick Ryan, whose name you now take in vain, confirmed to Noel Twyman that the "blob" had been painted in and where we know from Jackie's own testimony, for example, that from the front he looked just fine. My argument is laid out in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", which you can easily access via google. If I am right, then the film is a fake. So either show I am mistaken or accept the fact.

This is an interesting exercise, not merely because we hold each other in contempt, but because it requires us to set our personal attitudes aside in order to conduct an objective evaluation of the evidence. It should be apparent that my argument is of overwhelmingly greater significance than the argument for which you fault Doug, since his represents a relatively minor indication that the film is fake. Indeed, he has cited other Hollywood professionals who agree with Ryan, whom you have also discounted: you have compared their opinions to anal apertures, where it is clear that you really mean to describe them that way. There is nothing minor about my argument, however, as it is the core of deception in faking the film. If you are unable to defeat it, the identity of the true "village idiot" will be apparent to one and all.

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

Again we need more than "ought to" even more so since its coming from an ignorant so called "photo expert" who just got his clock handed to him.

Details please, along with some of that "scientific testing" you seem to love so much.

Or pull that tail back between your legs and scurry along....your call.

[Len Colby]

All,

I have just interviewed Doug Horne, the senior analysis for

military affairs for the Assassination Records Review Board,

on "American Awakening", Oracle Broadcasting Network, from

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

findings, which annihilate the efforts of Josiah Thompson,

Craig Lamson, Leonard Colby, and others to support Zapruder

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

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

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

was brought to the National Photographic Interpretation Center

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

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

is located in Rochester, which was the second introduction of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we have two different physically distinct films being brought

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

As Craig said, Horne seems to be out of his depth discussing photo issues. We know that several 1st and 2nd generation copies of the Z-film were made shortly after the assassination. We know that several copies were in the possession of federal agencies. One of Horne’s sources at the NPIC said the film they worked on was Kodakchrome II Type A Copy film, the same type Jamison’s used to made the same day 1st gen copies. IIRC the SS or FBI had the original for awhile. Thus why Horne and the alterationists think the NPIC possibly processing two different copies of the film proves anything is beyond me.

Also if Horne now concludes McMahon and Hunter received the film on Sunday he just undercut the reliability of the former, his star witness, who said this happened the night of the assassination. Hunter didn’t remember anyone named Bill or William Smith nor being told the film had been developed in Rochester.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Experts on film restoration" are not the most relevant professionals to determine if a film has been faked especially if they are examining low resolution digital copies rather than the film itself. In any case their views are irrelevant until we can read or hear them explain what lead them to reach the conclusions they did and what their credentials are.

[Len Colby]

FWIW much of IAARB v.IV and I presume v. I - III can be read on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Assassination...0984314431/ctoc

[Len Colby]

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

Kathy

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

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

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

Can you believe that?

Dean

Tink and Fetzer have traded so many insults over the years its hard to say who 'started it' by it's my experience that with the possible exception of his exchanges with Craig it's normally Fetzer who starts the name calling. Observe how he recently lashed out at Bill, Evan and Mike, look at the 1st pages of the Wellstone thread and see how he attacked Steve and Pat.

[Craig Lamson]

OK, Lamson. I'll bite. Since you have characterized me in a fashion that, in my opinion, fits you far better, I will see if I can cope with one of your arguments, while challenging you to cope with one of mine. Let's start with your argument related to the "blue scarf". I note that only black and white photographs appear in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), so obviously you cannot have based your argument about the color of scarfs based upon photos found there. What I want to know is (1) where is the argument you are attacking to be found and precisely what does it say; (2) what is wrong with the argument and how do you know; and (3) how could an independent experiment be conducted that would confirm or disconfirm your criticism? I am perfectly willing to concede if Doug has made a mistake, as I have already shown.

The principle of photographic exposure and double exposure is a very well known and quite basic to the field of photography. Anyone with even half a brian can figure out how it wor4s and can conduct very simple tests to confirm the process. In this case it flew over both your head and Jack White's...along with that of Doug Horne. Not a good start now is it?

But to answer number 1, the argument from Doug Horne can be found at his blog, a link is included upthread.

What is wrong with the argument? Horne has zero knowlege about the photographic properties of exposure, double exposure and bluring.

How do I know? 30 years of taking photographs daily along with a simple empirical experiment as detailed upthread.

How can you confirm my results? Do as I suggest in my post and do the test yourself.

By way of reciprocation, I want to know how you reconcile Zapruder film authenticity with (1) the "blob" that is blown out to the right-front; (2) the LIFE Magazine caption claiming that frame 313 establishes the direction from which the shots were fired; and (3) the missing mass to the right front of the autopsy X-rays? These appear to be three mutually-reinforcing fabrications of the evidence, where Roderick Ryan, whose name you now take in vain, confirmed to Noel Twyman that the "blob" had been painted in and where we know from Jackie's own testimony, for example, that from the front he looked just fine. My argument is laid out in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", which you can easily access via google. If I am right, then the film is a fake. So either show I am mistaken or accept the fact.

No Jim, your argument cannot be accepted as fact because it is based on pure speculation and opinion. As you well know, or at least should know since my position has been made perfectly clear many times over, I don't deal in opinion nor speculation when it comes to the photography of the JFK case, nor do I deal with opinion. I deal only with things that can be proven beyond doubt via experimental, empirical evidence. As such I don't give a rats butt about your argument, your opinions or conclusions. But if you somehow...how did you put it.... "how could an independent experiment be conducted that would confirm or disconfirm your criticism?" then I'll listen to your arguments as well.

In a similar vein opinion and speculatiuon by Ryan and the hollyweirds is also meaningless. When they bring empirical fact, then I'll listen.

This is an interesting exercise, not merely because we hold each other in contempt, but because it requires us to set our personal attitudes aside in order to conduct an objective evaluation of the evidence. It should be apparent that my argument is of overwhelmingly greater significance than the argument for which you fault Doug, since his represents a relatively minor indication that the film is fake.

Wrong again Jim. Is it now your claim that reckless speculation and conclusions tainted by a warped worldview trump hard fact obtained via experimentation and is reproducable?

Indeed, he has cited other Hollywood professionals who agree with Ryan, whom you have also discounted: you have compared their opinions to anal apertures, where it is clear that you really mean to describe them that way. There is nothing minor about my argument, however, as it is the core of deception in faking the film. If you are unable to defeat it, the identity of the true "village idiot" will be apparent to one and all.

The significance of my simple test goes beyond the alleged zfilm fakery and goes more directly to the competence of those making the claim, in this case Doug Horne and is Hollywood editors, who are advising him. we can forgive Doung his mistake, since it it clear he is beyond his station when it comes to the principles of photography. We cannot forgive his not doing some very simple empirical testing prior to publication of his claims. As for the Hollywood editors that are advising him, as I stated in my original post, if they are suggesting to him that the edge of the sign is questionable due to blurring, we can instantly dismiss them. If they fail at such a simple principle as this one, how can we apply any respect to their "opinions" on any other matters photographic?

Which brings us back to "opinions' and blobs and such other things. Clearly Ryan has formed an opinion, informed or otherwise, about the blob. Hornes buds in hollyweird have done the same. Sadly for you and for them, opinons do't prove anything. At best they are simply educated guesses, at worst they are just pure bs. Bring cold hard fact, backed by empirical data and them you MIGHT have something. Until then, you are simply blowing more smoke out of your very ample backside.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are quite the joker! I have only begun reading Horne's books, where the argument you posed doesn't even come from them but from his blog, so I find your position quite indefensible. Horne has destroyed the chair-of-possession argument and involved experts who know vastly more about film than Thompson, Zavada, Lamson and Wrone, which is going to blow this case out of the water! Suppose that Horne were wrong about every technical aspect of the film? What difference would it make? David Mantik, John Costella, David Lifton, David Healey, and Jack White have already covered that territory IN SPADES! So where do you come off acting so arrogant and condescending? I knew you would finesse the points I have made about the massive blow-out to the right front. Science is based on observation, measurement, and experient. The blow out is easily observed. The x-rays have been subjected to meticulous measurements. And if you can read, the caption in LIFE is not beyond you. These results are all easily replicatable, including David Mantik's optical densitometry studies. But like Thompson, Colby, and others on this forum, you are never going to admit when you are wrong, no matter how powerful the evidence. With each passing day, it becomes more and more obvious that your agenda is to obfuscate major developments in JFK research. Whatever your technical level of competence, it is for naught, since you lack the integrity required for serious research. We have adduced proof after proof of Zapruder film fakery--from John Costella's tutorial on assassinationscience.com to my "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" accessible via google and beyond. Now that Hollywood experts have become involved, the whole world will understand that you guys are not only phonys but frauds and even freaks who have done your damnedest to thwart, conceal, and suppress some of the most important discoveries in the history of the study of the assassination. For that, the world is not going to forgive you. On your epitaph will be written, "He claimed to be a tyro, but he proved to be a fraud!" And we have already shown that you are the bona fide "village idiot!" You and the rest of your lot deserve to be despised! Soon the contempt in which I hold you will be shared by the world. When you can refute the multiple argument for fakery, including those I present in the Prologue to HOAX (2003), you will deserve to be taken seriously. Until that time, you deserve nothing but contempt.

OK, Lamson. I'll bite. Since you have characterized me in a fashion that, in my opinion, fits you far better, I will see if I can cope with one of your arguments, while challenging you to cope with one of mine. Let's start with your argument related to the "blue scarf". I note that only black and white photographs appear in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), so obviously you cannot have based your argument about the color of scarfs based upon photos found there. What I want to know is (1) where is the argument you are attacking to be found and precisely what does it say; (2) what is wrong with the argument and how do you know; and (3) how could an independent experiment be conducted that would confirm or disconfirm your criticism? I am perfectly willing to concede if Doug has made a mistake, as I have already shown.

The principle of photographic exposure and double exposure is a very well known and quite basic to the field of photography. Anyone with even half a brian can figure out how it wor4s and can conduct very simple tests to confirm the process. In this case it flew over both your head and Jack White's...along with that of Doug Horne. Not a good start now is it?

But to answer number 1, the argument from Doug Horne can be found at his blog, a link is included upthread.

What is wrong with the argument? Horne has zero knowlege about the photographic properties of exposure, double exposure and bluring.

How do I know? 30 years of taking photographs daily along with a simple empirical experiment as detailed upthread.

How can you confirm my results? Do as I suggest in my post and do the test yourself.

By way of reciprocation, I want to know how you reconcile Zapruder film authenticity with (1) the "blob" that is blown out to the right-front; (2) the LIFE Magazine caption claiming that frame 313 establishes the direction from which the shots were fired; and (3) the missing mass to the right front of the autopsy X-rays? These appear to be three mutually-reinforcing fabrications of the evidence, where Roderick Ryan, whose name you now take in vain, confirmed to Noel Twyman that the "blob" had been painted in and where we know from Jackie's own testimony, for example, that from the front he looked just fine. My argument is laid out in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", which you can easily access via google. If I am right, then the film is a fake. So either show I am mistaken or accept the fact.

No Jim, your argument cannot be accepted as fact because it is based on pure speculation and opinion. As you well know, or at least should know since my position has been made perfectly clear many times over, I don't deal in opinion nor speculation when it comes to the photography of the JFK case, nor do I deal with opinion. I deal only with things that can be proven beyond doubt via experimental, empirical evidence. As such I don't give a rats butt about your argument, your opinions or conclusions. But if you somehow...how did you put it.... "how could an independent experiment be conducted that would confirm or disconfirm your criticism?" then I'll listen to your arguments as well.

In a similar vein opinion and speculatiuon by Ryan and the hollyweirds is also meaningless. When they bring empirical fact, then I'll listen.

This is an interesting exercise, not merely because we hold each other in contempt, but because it requires us to set our personal attitudes aside in order to conduct an objective evaluation of the evidence. It should be apparent that my argument is of overwhelmingly greater significance than the argument for which you fault Doug, since his represents a relatively minor indication that the film is fake.

Wrong again Jim. Is it now your claim that reckless speculation and conclusions tainted by a warped worldview trump hard fact obtained via experimentation and is reproducable?

Indeed, he has cited other Hollywood professionals who agree with Ryan, whom you have also discounted: you have compared their opinions to anal apertures, where it is clear that you really mean to describe them that way. There is nothing minor about my argument, however, as it is the core of deception in faking the film. If you are unable to defeat it, the identity of the true "village idiot" will be apparent to one and all.

The significance of my simple test goes beyond the alleged zfilm fakery and goes more directly to the competence of those making the claim, in this case Doug Horne and is Hollywood editors, who are advising him. we can forgive Doung his mistake, since it it clear he is beyond his station when it comes to the principles of photography. We cannot forgive his not doing some very simple empirical testing prior to publication of his claims. As for the Hollywood editors that are advising him, as I stated in my original post, if they are suggesting to him that the edge of the sign is questionable due to blurring, we can instantly dismiss them. If they fail at such a simple principle as this one, how can we apply any respect to their "opinions" on any other matters photographic?

Which brings us back to "opinions' and blobs and such other things. Clearly Ryan has formed an opinion, informed or otherwise, about the blob. Hornes buds in hollyweird have done the same. Sadly for you and for them, opinons do't prove anything. At best they are simply educated guesses, at worst they are just pure bs. Bring cold hard fact, backed by empirical data and them you MIGHT have something. Until then, you are simply blowing more smoke out of your very ample backside.

Edited December 27, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

You are quite the joker! I have only begun reading Horne's books, where the argument you posed doesn't even come from them but from his blog, so I find your position quite indefensible.

So Horne's own statements, about his own claims don't qualify? Man you really ARE the village idiot!

Horne has destroyed the chair-of-possession argument and involved experts who know vastly more about film than Thompson, Zavada, Lamson and Wrone, which is going to blow this case out of the water!

Well Jim, once again your state opinion as fact. You just can't quit can you.

Suppose that Horne were wrong about every technical aspect of the film? What difference would it make? David Mantik, John Costella, David Lifton, David Healey, and Jack White have already covered that territory IN SPADES!

They have? That's news to everyone who has actually studied their work on the film and tossed out the mindless opinion and ignorant speculation. All that is really left is the junk science as posted by Costalla and then he only has two arguments not based on handwaving...the sign and the lampost. And we know he failed at those too.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

So where do you come off acting so arrogant and condescending? I knew you would finesse the points I have made about the massive blow-out to the right front. Science is based on observation, measurement, and experient. The blow out is easily observed.

No, OPINION is being generated as to what is BEING observed. Not much science in that opinion.

The x-rays have been subjected to meticulous measurements.

And then OPINION generated as to what those measurements mean. In any case I don't do medical.

And if you can read, the caption in LIFE is not beyond you.

The LIfe caption is an OPINION, and not a statement of fact. Boy this stuff really confuses you.

These results are all easily replicatable, including David Mantik's optical densitometry studies.

Actually the denitometry is the only data that CAN be tested and verifed, (of the points you first raised)and then you are left once again with OPINION as to what the measurements mean. If you want to build your case on opinion, that's your choice, but don't scream like a stuck pig when you claim it as fact and then get called on your ignorance.

But like Thompson, Colby, and others on this forum, you are never going to admit when you are wrong, no matter how powerful the evidence.

I'll gladly admit I am wrong when presented with cold, hard and reproducable empirical evidence. In fact I've done so on this very forum. However your opinion and blatant speculation is not proof, and your cointinued insistance it is ( not only in the jfk case but in everything you touch) has branded you as a joke the world over.

With each passing day, it becomes more and more obvious that your agenda is to obfuscate major developments in JFK research.

So, providing graphic, reproducable empirical evidence of the basics photographic principles is now obfuscatgion? My Jim, you have sunk to a new low. Damn its fun to see the smoke spewing froim your ears and ample backside as you try in vain to salvage your tarnished reputation.

Whatever your technical level of competence, it is for naught, since you lack the integrity required for serious research. We have adduced proof after proof of Zapruder film fakery--from John Costella's tutorial on assassinationscience.com to my "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" accessible via google and beyond.

Integrity requrires honesty. Given that you cite Costella once again please show us his honesty (and yours) by posting his rebuttals or admission of error to these:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Until then your attempts to impune anyones integrity are a joke.

Now that that Hollywood has become involved, the whole world will understand that you guys are not only phonys but frauds and even freaks who have done your damnedest to thwart, conceal, and suppress some of the most important discoveries in the history of the study of the assassination.

I guess we will need to wait and see what Hollyweird brings to the table before we can judge the results. Well thats what honest people will do anyway. Honest does not describe you Jim as your statemetn shows. You have already decided that Hollowood will be correct without even seeing the work! So much or your objectivity, honesty and the integrity required for serious research. At this point all they have offered is more opinion and it appears very poor advice to Horne as well as troubling lack of basic photographic knowlege.

For that, the world is not going to forgive you.

Really? Fisrt you have to prove me wrong, and there is plenty to work from. My empirical works are easily available. I don't fear for my reputation as it, unlike yours, is grounded in empirical data, and not mindless speculation and opinion.

On your epitaph will be written, "He claimed to be a tyro, but he proved to be a fraud!" And we have already shown that you are the true "village idiot!"

Then please, refute any of my studies and empirical work. If I'm the idiot you suggest that should be quite easy. You can't? No wonder you fear me.

You and the rest of your lot deserve to be despised! Soon the contempt in which I hold you will be shared by the world. When you can refute the multiple argument for fakery, including those I present in the Prologue to HOAX (2003), you will deserve to be taken seriously. Until that time, you deserve nothing but contempt.

I'll be happy to discuss any and all empircial data you care to present as it concerns the Zpruder film and the claimed alteration. If all you have is opinion, then crawl back into your hole.

[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...

Hi Bernice, a very merry season to you and yours too.

I say this respectfully. I have long since debunked most of my own work, and those who gave me the hard time over much of it were correct to do so. I bear no grudges against them at all, nor against anyone who has a different point of view. I would be foolish to do so, as I assume that the truth is what we are all searching for, if we don't know it already, and an open mind is usually a healthy mind. I have learned that garbage in always equals garbage out, and that facts, undeniable touchable hands on true facts, are all that should count if history is to reveal the truth to later generations. Speculation is fine, without it we may not reach some as yet unknown facts. Speculation can be part of a truth seeking process, but those who flowingly spout speculation, claiming it to be undeniable touchable hands on true facts, with zero proof of such, are wrong to do so. I know who they are, you know who they are, and they know who they are. I'm long removed from those who continually accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being agents, fakes or whatever. That's the land of paranoia, and I wish to be no part of that lame brained nonsense.

Duncan

thank you duncan for the reply, but doug horne's book is not all what you call speculation, it is documented ...so it is certainly to be read and studied very seriously by those who are interested in staying up to date..imo...take care b..p.s yes i agree there is much and more today seemingly garbage in and garbage out though i really doubt we are thinking of the same people but that's imo...b

Edited December 28, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Just to reinforce the realization that Craig Lamson is a hypocritical charlatan, his emphasis upon replicable experiments applies to some contexts of research but not to others. As an undergraduate at Princeton, for example, I conducted inclined plane experiments to confirm Galileo's law of falling bodies, where deviations from predictions derived from free fall conditions were explained on the basis of the coefficient of friction of the wooden plane and its grooves. That kind of replication is appropriate when we are seeking to test laws and theories about falling bodies and the like. But other scientific contexts are not repeatable in the laboratory. Newton's synthesis of Galileo's law with the motion of the planets around the Sun and of the Moon around the Earth were not situations in which you could conduct laboratory replications of planetary motion--except by way of simulations and models. But it was not unscientific for that. It was pursuing the study of the phenomena using the appropriate methodology.

In the case of determining what happened at the NPIC on the weekend following the assassination, the appropriate techiques of research include studies of the documentary records--which, in this case, even include the fourth of the four "briefing boards" that were prepared for an unspecified high official, who appears to have been John McCone, Director of the CIA, but also--and rather obviously--conducting interviews with those who were involved. These we know included Homer McMahon, Ben Hunter, and Dino Brugioni, then Deputy Director of the NPIC. These interviews established that an 8mm version of the film was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 23 November 1963, when Ben Hunter was not present, and a second, 16mm version, was brought to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 November 1963, when he was, which, according to its custodian, William Smith, had been processed at the super-secret CIA lab known as "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak Headquarters in Rochester, thereby establishing the existence of two copies of the film.

Lamson would have you believe that this is "speculation", but it is nothing of the sort. It is precisely the kind of patient, detailed and thorough investigation with multiple witnesses, documents and other records that historical research entails. For Lamson to suggest that it should be dismissed because it does not involve replicating experiments in a lab reveals the depth of his cynicism. He has also dismissed the Hollywood experts who studied the 6k version of the film after digital transfer, where each frame was reproduced at a pixel density of 6,000 per frame. It was then projected on a large screen and studied. In case anyone misses the point, this was an experiment, which could be replicated. The film could be transferred at different pixel densities or at the same one used here and studied. The results of this repeatable experiment were that these experts were appalled at the very amateurish character of the fakery, where the massive blow-out to the back of the head had obviously been painted over and the "blob" painted in.

Once again, we find the methodology appropriate to the subject matter being employed by experts in the relevant disciplines. As I have previously explained, moreover, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., conducted the most exacting and painstaking measurements of the amount of light that passes through an X-ray to determine its density properties, which facilitates calculations of the relative density of the objects whose exposure to radiation created the images. He discovered that the massive blow-out to the back of the head had been obfuscated on the X-rays, initially supposing that it was done by "patching" the blow out with material that was much too dense to be human bone, more recently proposing that it was effectuated more simply by massive overexposure to the X-ray prior to its development. Either way, Mantik's studies are objective and scientific and replicable by any one who has the appropriate equipment and training to conduct them. So the highest standards of empirical inquiry have been satisfied here.

Lamson would have you believe that he is an expert on the nature of science. That, alas, is simply one more form of deception to which he is subjecting this audience. He is unwilling to acknowledge that observation, measurement, and experiment support the discoveries that Doug Horne is presenting in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). He is doing that because he appears to have been either assigned the task or taken it upon himself to attempt to debunk new research on the lack of authenticity of the Zapruder film. I dare say, if he thought he could get away with it, he would want to deny that you can actually observe for yourself the blow-out to the back of the head in frames 374 and thereabout. I challenged him to refute the argument that I presented in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". He evaded the issue by suggesting that, when it was supported on the basis of scientific procedures, then he would address it. But it had been already! I remarked that, if he did not confront this demonstration of fakery, he would have exposed himself as the bona fide "village idiot" on this forum. Lamson is no longer "the joker" but has turned into a joke!

You are quite the joker! I have only begun reading Horne's books, where the argument you posed doesn't even come from them but from his blog, so I find your position quite indefensible.

So Horne's own statements, about his own claims don't qualify? Man you really ARE the village idiot!

Horne has destroyed the chair-of-possession argument and involved experts who know vastly more about film than Thompson, Zavada, Lamson and Wrone, which is going to blow this case out of the water!

Well Jim, once again your state opinion as fact. You just can't quit can you.

Suppose that Horne were wrong about every technical aspect of the film? What difference would it make? David Mantik, John Costella, David Lifton, David Healey, and Jack White have already covered that territory IN SPADES!

They have? That's news to everyone who has actually studied their work on the film and tossed out the mindless opinion and ignorant speculation. All that is really left is the junk science as posted by Costalla and then he only has two arguments not based on handwaving...the sign and the lampost. And we know he failed at those too.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

So where do you come off acting so arrogant and condescending? I knew you would finesse the points I have made about the massive blow-out to the right front. Science is based on observation, measurement, and experient. The blow out is easily observed.

No, OPINION is being generated as to what is BEING observed. Not much science in that opinion.

The x-rays have been subjected to meticulous measurements.

And then OPINION generated as to what those measurements mean. In any case I don't do medical.

And if you can read, the caption in LIFE is not beyond you.

The LIfe caption is an OPINION, and not a statement of fact. Boy this stuff really confuses you.

These results are all easily replicatable, including David Mantik's optical densitometry studies.

Actually the denitometry is the only data that CAN be tested and verifed, (of the points you first raised)and then you are left once again with OPINION as to what the measurements mean. If you want to build your case on opinion, that's your choice, but don't scream like a stuck pig when you claim it as fact and then get called on your ignorance.

But like Thompson, Colby, and others on this forum, you are never going to admit when you are wrong, no matter how powerful the evidence.

I'll gladly admit I am wrong when presented with cold, hard and reproducable empirical evidence. In fact I've done so on this very forum. However your opinion and blatant speculation is not proof, and your cointinued insistance it is ( not only in the jfk case but in everything you touch) has branded you as a joke the world over.

With each passing day, it becomes more and more obvious that your agenda is to obfuscate major developments in JFK research.

So, providing graphic, reproducable empirical evidence of the basics photographic principles is now obfuscatgion? My Jim, you have sunk to a new low. Damn its fun to see the smoke spewing froim your ears and ample backside as you try in vain to salvage your tarnished reputation.

Whatever your technical level of competence, it is for naught, since you lack the integrity required for serious research. We have adduced proof after proof of Zapruder film fakery--from John Costella's tutorial on assassinationscience.com to my "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" accessible via google and beyond.

Integrity requrires honesty. Given that you cite Costella once again please show us his honesty (and yours) by posting his rebuttals or admission of error to these:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Until then your attempts to impune anyones integrity are a joke.

Now that that Hollywood has become involved, the whole world will understand that you guys are not only phonys but frauds and even freaks who have done your damnedest to thwart, conceal, and suppress some of the most important discoveries in the history of the study of the assassination.

I guess we will need to wait and see what Hollyweird brings to the table before we can judge the results. Well thats what honest people will do anyway. Honest does not describe you Jim as your statemetn shows. You have already decided that Hollowood will be correct without even seeing the work! So much or your objectivity, honesty and the integrity required for serious research. At this point all they have offered is more opinion and it appears very poor advice to Horne as well as troubling lack of basic photographic knowlege.

For that, the world is not going to forgive you.

Really? Fisrt you have to prove me wrong, and there is plenty to work from. My empirical works are easily available. I don't fear for my reputation as it, unlike yours, is grounded in empirical data, and not mindless speculation and opinion.

On your epitaph will be written, "He claimed to be a tyro, but he proved to be a fraud!" And we have already shown that you are the true "village idiot!"

Then please, refute any of my studies and empirical work. If I'm the idiot you suggest that should be quite easy. You can't? No wonder you fear me.

You and the rest of your lot deserve to be despised! Soon the contempt in which I hold you will be shared by the world. When you can refute the multiple argument for fakery, including those I present in the Prologue to HOAX (2003), you will deserve to be taken seriously. Until that time, you deserve nothing but contempt.

I'll be happy to discuss any and all empircial data you care to present as it concerns the Zpruder film and the claimed alteration. If all you have is opinion, then crawl back into your hole.

Edited December 27, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

I dont think Lamson has really read TGZFH

If he did he would not be saying it is all speculation and opinion

How can a logical person as you claim to be Craig be so blind to the facts presented in TGZFH?