Fetzer & Lifton channel Doug Horne: Truly or Falsely?

[Josiah Thompson]

FETZER AND LIFTON CHANNEL DOUG HORNE: TRULY OR FALSELY?

We first heard of “Hawkeyeworks” at the 1998 Lancer Conference. Since that time, NPIC, Doug Horne’s interviews with Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon and associated details have become a staple of Fetzer’s series of books on the assassination. His Great Zapruder Film Hoax, published in 2003, featured a long article by David Lifton entitled, “Pig on a Leash.” Written in a kind of jaunty prose much more enjoyable to read than the usual assassination fare, this article laid out in detail Lifon’s long history with the film and his equally long attempt to show it was faked-up. Surprisingly, in a piece that runs on for 117 pages of small print, Lifton offers exactly one fact to show the Zapruder film has been altered. This fact, says Lifton, came to his attention through Doug Horne.

Horne had frequent contact with Roland Zavada as Zavada carried out his work for the AARB. According to Lifton, Horne explained to him that Zavada had come upon one significant indication that the Zapruder film was faked-up and never admitted this in his final report. According to Lifton, this signal indication of Zapruder fakery was what he called “the full flush left problem.” Here is how Lifton explained it in the first printing of his article:

"This point is crucial: in the case of the supposed camera original, there is not just “some image” in the sprocket hole area (the image doesn’t just “bleed over” a little bit); rather, the image goes all the way to the left! To the left margin of the film!

That this is so can clearly be seen even on the frames of the Zapruder film published in Volume 18 of the 26 Volumes. But is that possible? Can the Zapruder lens do that? Can it put an image on the film that is full flush left?

In connection with his ARRB work, Zavada purchased some half dozen cameras at garage sales, he took them apart, he put them back together. The man really worked hard on a wide variety of problems and issues.

And then he went to Dallas and took test shots, putting his wife in Dealey Plaza, and exposed all sorts of scenes at a variety of settings.

Then these test pictures – these test shots – went into an appendix in the final report, which was delivered within hours of the ARRB going out of existence. A report that was supposed to 'explain the anomalies.'

What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance – not a single one – could Rollie Zavada get the images to go full flush left.

It couldn’t be done, because the camera just isn’t designed that way. " (TGZFH, p. 397)

In the second printing, Lifton explained it this way:

"Turning to Figures 4-1 and 4-2 [of the Zavada Report], the Zapruder frames, the Zapruder frames Rollie had photographed at the National Archives, it was clear that these frames were out full flush left. All the way to the left.

Then Doug compared those with the test shots Rollie made in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder’s perch with one of his Zapruder-type cameras. One strip showed [his] wife standing in the street, another showed a red truck passing through. Another test shot, his figure 4-26, showed his wife standing in front of their garage in Rochester. In each case, Rollie varied the telephoto setting and, as the zoom increased, the left margin moved somewhat to the left. But, contrary to what Rollie had told me, there was quite a problem.

The test frames did not appear similar to those from the original Zapruder film. It was a simple matter of geometry: Rollie’s clearly did not go consistently full flush left." (TGZFH, p.97)

To this charge of cover-up, Rollie Zavada responded in his usual calm, mild way. As Lifton points out, “Zavada replied with a statement, posted on the Internet. He claimed his test shots proved the case – that his test shots proved full penetration of the intersprocket area...(TGZFH, p. 402).

Lifton and Fetzer must have felt that their proof in this area was wanting. In the second printing of TGZFH, they added photos purporting to show Zavada’s test shots. In the text under the test shots, appears this claim: “Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [Zavada] replicate the continuous ‘full flush left’ phenomenon seen on the previous two pages” (TGZFH, p. 400).

So let’s see if what Fetzer and Lifton (channeling Horne) say is correct. Is it true or false that using other cameras of the same make and model Zavada was unable to produce “full flush left penetration?”

First, here is a shot of several frames from the Zapruder film used by Zavada as “Figure 4-2" and commented upon by Lifton/Horne:

Next is the published Fetzer/Lifton’s version of a test shot by Zavada showing a truck in Dealey Plaza:

Next is the actual photo as it appears in Figure 3-12 of Zavada’s Study 3:

Finally, here is another test shot by Zavada using a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder’s. Note that this test shot also shows “full flush left penetration.”

I want to point out that I wasn’t swift enough to get all this straight. It was Rollie Zavada back in 2003 who called my attention to this. With respect to this later test shot he wrote on a Post-It: “Note full intersprocket image penetration.” With respect to the former test shot of the pickup truck in Dealey Plaza,"[/i] he wrote on a Post-It: “Note: Full inter-sprocket image penetration of truck scene taken in Dallas. Doug Horne missed this in my report!”

I want to make two things clear.

(1) Doug Horne had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer. When Horne’s book arrives, I look forward to seeing whether this earlier bogus claim remains in any way a part of his discussion of the Zapruder film.

(2) What Fetzer and perhaps Lifton did here is simply outrageous. They took one of Rollie Zavada’s test shots. They published it in degraded form and used that form to claim it showed the opposite of what it does show! For all I know, this was done without either Horne’s or Lifton’s knowledge and permission. Similar cases occur in other Fetzer books. In Murder in Dealey Plaza, he circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine windshield and labeled it, “The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” In The 9/11 Conspiracy, he publishes a photo of World Trade Center 7 with a caption that states, “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” The only problem is that the photo was taken in 1997 and the “modest fire at street level” is an orange Calder statue installed on the mezzanine level of the building!

Josiah Thompson

[Peter Fokes]

I want to make two things clear.

(1) Doug Horne had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer. When Horne’s book arrives, I look forward to seeing whether this earlier bogus claim remains in any way a part of his discussion of the Zapruder film.

Josiah Thompson

Horne writes:

<quote on>

In the Spring of 1999 I discovered an apparently serious inconsistency between the degree of intersprocket penetration on the extant film in the Archives (which was shot at full zoom setting), and the degree of intersprocket penetration in the test film shot at full zoom by Rollie Zavada in identical-model cameras. To make a long story short, I discovered that the degree of intersprocket penetration on the extant film was consistently 'full flush left,' or all the way from the projected image frame out to the full left-hand margin of each sprocket hole -- whereas the degree of intersprocket penetration on the test film shot by Zavada in the same make and model of Bell and Howell movie camera either did not go fully to the left of the intersprocket area at all - OR IN SOME CASES WHERE IT DID, it only occurred intermittently, and did not occur in every single frame as it does in the extant film in the Archives.

<quote off>

INSIDE THE ARRB, p. 1282

I am surprised you didn't wait until you had received Horne's book.

Why write two posts when you could write one?

Lets leave the topic of channeling to psychics.

Regards,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

[William Kelly]

I want to make two things clear.

(1) Doug Horne had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer. When Horne's book arrives, I look forward to seeing whether this earlier bogus claim remains in any way a part of his discussion of the Zapruder film.

Josiah Thompson

Horne writes:

<quote on>

In the Spring of 1999 I discovered an apparently serious inconsistency between the degree of intersprocket penetration on the extant film in the Archives (which was shot at full zoom setting), and the degree of intersprocket penetration in the test film shot at full zoom by Rollie Zavada in identical-model cameras. To make a long story short, I discovered that the degree of intersprocket penetration on the extant film was consistently 'full flush left,' or all the way from the projected image frame out to the full left-hand margin of each sprocket hole -- whereas the degree of intersprocket penetration on the test film shot by Zavada in the same make and model of Bell and Howell movie camera either did not go fully to the left of the intersprocket area at all - OR IN SOME CASES WHERE IT DID, it only occurred intermittently, and did not occur in every single frame as it does in the extant film in the Archives.

<quote off>

INSIDE THE ARRB, p. 1282

I am surprised you didn't wait until you had received Horne's book.

Why write two posts when you could write one?

Lets leave the topic of channeling to psychics.

Regards,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without bringing in Prof. Fetzer and David Lifton but I guess that's impossible.

And now that TT has put Horne, Fetzer, Lifton and channeling together, they are all poisioned, though we should be able to discuss the evidence independently of them.

Was "Hawkeye Works" first mentioned at Lancer as stated here or at a Fetzer conference on the Z-film in Minnesotta as previously reported?

And I don't think Fetzer has harped on this at all. He would rather argue about the anomalies than discuss the provenance of the film.

In fact after the ARRB folded and Lifton mentioned "Hawkeye Works" in his Pig on a Leash talk, I don't know that "Hawkeye Works" was ever mentioned anywhere, though I stand be corrected if anyone can point to a place where it was discussed. And here we are over a decade later, and things that could have been resolved by the ARRB and weren't, still aren't.

But let me try and let me get this one thing straight. The guy from Kodak - Zavada - in trying to determine the Z-film's authenticity, doesn't use Zapruder's camera but uses a similar make and model?

If the original Z-film was in fact placed through a optical printer then it was copied, then the camera in the optical printer would become the new in-camera original, a film that could not be duplicated by Zapruder's camera, which like all manual cameras, typewriters and gun barrels, each has its own unique attributes and anamolies.

So it would be impossible to demonstrate proof without using the original camera.

Why wasn't Zavada permitted to use the original Zapruder camera?

Bill Kelly

Edited December 29, 2009 by William Kelly

[Dean Hagerman]

FETZER AND LIFTON CHANNEL DOUG HORNE: TRULY OR FALSELY?

We first heard of “Hawkeyeworks” at the 1998 Lancer Conference. Since that time, NPIC, Doug Horne’s interviews with Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon and associated details have become a staple of Fetzer’s series of books on the assassination. His Great Zapruder Film Hoax, published in 2003, featured a long article by David Lifton entitled, “Pig on a Leash.” Written in a kind of jaunty prose much more enjoyable to read than the usual assassination fare, this article laid out in detail Lifon’s long history with the film and his equally long attempt to show it was faked-up. Surprisingly, in a piece that runs on for 117 pages of small print, Lifton offers exactly one fact to show the Zapruder film has been altered. This fact, says Lifton, came to his attention through Doug Horne.

Horne had frequent contact with Roland Zavada as Zavada carried out his work for the AARB. According to Lifton, Horne explained to him that Zavada had come upon one significant indication that the Zapruder film was faked-up and never admitted this in his final report. According to Lifton, this signal indication of Zapruder fakery was what he called “the full flush left problem.” Here is how Lifton explained it in the first printing of his article:

"This point is crucial: in the case of the supposed camera original, there is not just “some image” in the sprocket hole area (the image doesn’t just “bleed over” a little bit); rather, the image goes all the way to the left! To the left margin of the film!

That this is so can clearly be seen even on the frames of the Zapruder film published in Volume 18 of the 26 Volumes. But is that possible? Can the Zapruder lens do that? Can it put an image on the film that is full flush left?

In connection with his ARRB work, Zavada purchased some half dozen cameras at garage sales, he took them apart, he put them back together. The man really worked hard on a wide variety of problems and issues.

And then he went to Dallas and took test shots, putting his wife in Dealey Plaza, and exposed all sorts of scenes at a variety of settings.

Then these test pictures – these test shots – went into an appendix in the final report, which was delivered within hours of the ARRB going out of existence. A report that was supposed to 'explain the anomalies.'

What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance – not a single one – could Rollie Zavada get the images to go full flush left.

It couldn’t be done, because the camera just isn’t designed that way. " (TGZFH, p. 397)

In the second printing, Lifton explained it this way:

"Turning to Figures 4-1 and 4-2 [of the Zavada Report], the Zapruder frames, the Zapruder frames Rollie had photographed at the National Archives, it was clear that these frames were out full flush left. All the way to the left.

Then Doug compared those with the test shots Rollie made in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder’s perch with one of his Zapruder-type cameras. One strip showed [his] wife standing in the street, another showed a red truck passing through. Another test shot, his figure 4-26, showed his wife standing in front of their garage in Rochester. In each case, Rollie varied the telephoto setting and, as the zoom increased, the left margin moved somewhat to the left. But, contrary to what Rollie had told me, there was quite a problem.

The test frames did not appear similar to those from the original Zapruder film. It was a simple matter of geometry: Rollie’s clearly did not go consistently full flush left." (TGZFH, p.97)

To this charge of cover-up, Rollie Zavada responded in his usual calm, mild way. As Lifton points out, “Zavada replied with a statement, posted on the Internet. He claimed his test shots proved the case – that his test shots proved full penetration of the intersprocket area...(TGZFH, p. 402).

Lifton and Fetzer must have felt that their proof in this area was wanting. In the second printing of TGZFH, they added photos purporting to show Zavada’s test shots. In the text under the test shots, appears this claim: “Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [Zavada] replicate the continuous ‘full flush left’ phenomenon seen on the previous two pages” (TGZFH, p. 400).

So let’s see if what Fetzer and Lifton (channeling Horne) say is correct. Is it true or false that using other cameras of the same make and model Zavada was unable to produce “full flush left penetration?”

I want to point out that I wasn’t swift enough to get all this straight. It was Rollie Zavada back in 2003 who called my attention to this. With respect to this later test shot he wrote on a Post-It: “Note full intersprocket image penetration.” With respect to the former test shot of the pickup truck in Dealey Plaza,"[/i] he wrote on a Post-It: “Note: Full inter-sprocket image penetration of truck scene taken in Dallas. Doug Horne missed this in my report!”

I want to make two things clear.

(1) Doug Horne had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer. When Horne’s book arrives, I look forward to seeing whether this earlier bogus claim remains in any way a part of his discussion of the Zapruder film.

(2) What Fetzer and perhaps Lifton did here is simply outrageous. They took one of Rollie Zavada’s test shots. They published it in degraded form and used that form to claim it showed the opposite of what it does show! For all I know, this was done without either Horne’s or Lifton’s knowledge and permission. Similar cases occur in other Fetzer books. In Murder in Dealey Plaza, he circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine windshield and labeled it, “The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” In The 9/11 Conspiracy, he publishes a photo of World Trade Center 7 with a caption that states, “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” The only problem is that the photo was taken in 1997 and the “modest fire at street level” is an orange Calder statue installed on the mezzanine level of the building!

Josiah Thompson

Tink

First of all my grandfathers favorite book on the assassination is "Six Seconds In Dallas" he read his copy of your book one time back when it came out, when he handed it down to me back in 1988 I read it, at that time my grandpa also had the paperback version with highlights and notes that he passed down to me as well (along with 150+ other assassination books) so I could keep the hardcover in mint condition and read the paperback as much as I wanted.

So I want to thank you for writing a great book that not only my grandpa loves but I love as well, we spent 100s of hours going over the assassination and your book was a major topic for us including the two head shot theory (that you now claim was wrong, I still think you are right about that and would love to talk to you about why you changed your mind) I hold you book as one of the centerpieces of my collection (along wih my signed copy of "Forgive My Grief vol1" by Penn Jones and my signed copy of "Post Mortem" by Harold Weisberg who signed them for my grandpa) It would be an honor if you would one day sign my hardcover copy of SSID

Now that thats out of the way, I am reading Doug Hornes vol 4 right now, and I must say that not only does Doug validate David Liftons theory in "Best Evidence" but also does the same for Fetzers "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" both of those books I agree with 100% and back them up

I have believed in alteration since reading "Bloody Treason" back in 1997 and countinued to believe and study all three of Fetzers books ending with the amazing TGZFH

I must say that your post has a bit of fear behind it, with the history of you and fetzer I must say that Dougs books are going to convince alot of researchers that the Z-film was altered

Before you put me down like your crew member Craig remember this, I have nothing but respect for you and your work Tink, and like I said I still agree with most of SSID and use a major theory in your book as part of my overall view on the assassination

However with regards to Fetzer and alteration I belive that you are wrong

Again Tink thanks for putting out a great book and being one of the first researchers on the assassination, I hope we can talk in depth about the two head shot theory and why you dont back that up anymore as well as your thoughts on alteration

Dean

Edited December 29, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Dean Hagerman]

It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without bringing in Prof. Fetzer and David Lifton but I guess that's impossible.

Bill

Why do you keep making statements like this?

How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up?

Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration

Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic

I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic

I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic

Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late

[William Kelly]

It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without bringing in Prof. Fetzer and David Lifton but I guess that's impossible.

Bill

Why do you keep making statements like this?

How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up?

Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration

Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic

I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic

I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic

Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late

I don't think so Dean.

You and others have taken the Doug Horne thread and made it your little debate about Noel Twyman's book.

As for discussing the Z-film or "Hawkeye Works" without mentioning Fetzer or Lifton will be necessary to get beyone any arguments and determine some facts about both the film, its chain of possession and whether it ever was at "Hawkeye Works."

My purpose isn't to win an internet forum debate, but to determine if there is any evidence of destruction of records, tampering with evidence, theft of evidence, and attempting to locate missing records that I think are still out there and weren't destroyed, like Babuska lady's film, the Secret Service records, the missing briefing boards, etc. I'm also looking for new witnesses, and damn, if they don't show up, as we now have Homer McMahon and his assistant and Dino B., all CIA officers, who, unlike Fetzer, Lifton and other alternationist, their testimony is a little bit harder to discard as foolish nonsense.

I'm looking for evidence of destruction and tamerping with records and new witnesses that can be called to testify under oath before Congress.

None of these things have anything to do with Fetzer, other than the fact that he published Lifton's article "Pig On A Leash" over a decade ago and mentined the "Hawkeye Works" angle, that nobody has done anything on since then.

If and when Congress decides to hold oversight hearings of the JFK Act, and actually look into what the ARRB discovered, and try to determine who destroyed what records and why, then the focus must be on the destroyed, missing and still wrongfully withheld records, and NOT on Professor Fetzer or what David Lifton's opinion is of Bob Groden.

There is a method to my madness, but I have to stay on track, even if you enjoy jumping around and learning Prof. Fetzer's principles on how to win internet debates.

I guess I'll have to start my own thead.

Get it?

BK

[Dean Hagerman]

It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without bringing in Prof. Fetzer and David Lifton but I guess that's impossible.

Bill

Why do you keep making statements like this?

How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up?

Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration

Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic

I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic

I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic

Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late

I don't think so Dean.

You and others have taken the Doug Horne thread and made it your little debate about Noel Twyman's book.

As for discussing the Z-film or "Hawkeye Works" without mentioning Fetzer or Lifton will be necessary to get beyone any arguments and determine some facts about both the film, its chain of possession and whether it ever was at "Hawkeye Works."

My purpose isn't to win an internet forum debate, but to determine if there is any evidence of destruction of records, tampering with evidence, theft of evidence, and attempting to locate missing records that I think are still out there and weren't destroyed, like Babuska lady's film, the Secret Service records, the missing briefing boards, etc. I'm also looking for new witnesses, and damn, if they don't show up, as we now have Homer McMahon and his assistant and Dino B., all CIA officers, who, unlike Fetzer, Lifton and other alternationist, their testimony is a little bit harder to discard as foolish nonsense.

I'm looking for evidence of destruction and tamerping with records and new witnesses that can be called to testify under oath before Congress.

None of these things have anything to do with Fetzer, other than the fact that he published Lifton's article "Pig On A Leash" over a decade ago and mentined the "Hawkeye Works" angle, that nobody has done anything on since then.

If and when Congress decides to hold oversight hearings of the JFK Act, and actually look into what the ARRB discovered, and try to determine who destroyed what records and why, then the focus must be on the destroyed, missing and still wrongfully withheld records, and NOT on Professor Fetzer or what David Lifton's opinion is of Bob Groden.

There is a method to my madness, but I have to stay on track, even if you enjoy jumping around and learning Prof. Fetzer's principles on how to win internet debates.

I guess I'll have to start my own thead.

Get it?

BK

Ok Bill that clears it up a little for me

But you know how forums work, there is no way that you can control a thread and keep it on just the title topic

What I dont get is that you are saying "Hawkeye Works" has nothing to do with Fetzer, yet in the same sentence you admit that it has do with fetzer because it was in his book

I dont know about you Bill but to me Fetzer has a ton to do with Hawkeye works, he PUBLISHED it though Lifton!

And I dont want to jump tp conclusions so I will ask you one last thing

Your saying you dont want Fetzer and Lifton involed in any talks about Hawkeye works because they will argue with others about it? And you wont get the facts about Hawkeye works if Lifton and Fetzer are involved in the thread?

How does that work Bill? Your talking about the guy who wrote it and the guy who published it, if it was not for them you would never know about Hawkeye works, now you dont want those two to be a part of any talks about it because they might start arguing about it?

I hope that im wrong and am just misunderstanding what you are saying

[Jack White]

Bill is right that the documentation is what matters.

Bill is wrong that the people who know all about the documentation do not matter. They are

the ones who would be called to testify about the documentation. Whether hearing or courts,

witnesses are called. Horne and Lifton would be star witnesses. Fetzer would also make an

excellent witness because of his encyclopedic memory, grasp of information and knack of

extemporaneous speaking. Costella and Mantik would be excellent witnesses because of their

scientific credentials. The all-star witnesses would be the HOLLYWOOD 7.

Jack

[William Kelly]

It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without bringing in Prof. Fetzer and David Lifton but I guess that's impossible.

Bill

Why do you keep making statements like this?

How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up?

Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration

Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic

I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic

I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic

Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late

I don't think so Dean.

You and others have taken the Doug Horne thread and made it your little debate about Noel Twyman's book.

As for discussing the Z-film or "Hawkeye Works" without mentioning Fetzer or Lifton will be necessary to get beyone any arguments and determine some facts about both the film, its chain of possession and whether it ever was at "Hawkeye Works."

My purpose isn't to win an internet forum debate, but to determine if there is any evidence of destruction of records, tampering with evidence, theft of evidence, and attempting to locate missing records that I think are still out there and weren't destroyed, like Babuska lady's film, the Secret Service records, the missing briefing boards, etc. I'm also looking for new witnesses, and damn, if they don't show up, as we now have Homer McMahon and his assistant and Dino B., all CIA officers, who, unlike Fetzer, Lifton and other alternationist, their testimony is a little bit harder to discard as foolish nonsense.

I'm looking for evidence of destruction and tamerping with records and new witnesses that can be called to testify under oath before Congress.

None of these things have anything to do with Fetzer, other than the fact that he published Lifton's article "Pig On A Leash" over a decade ago and mentined the "Hawkeye Works" angle, that nobody has done anything on since then.

If and when Congress decides to hold oversight hearings of the JFK Act, and actually look into what the ARRB discovered, and try to determine who destroyed what records and why, then the focus must be on the destroyed, missing and still wrongfully withheld records, and NOT on Professor Fetzer or what David Lifton's opinion is of Bob Groden.

There is a method to my madness, but I have to stay on track, even if you enjoy jumping around and learning Prof. Fetzer's principles on how to win internet debates.

I guess I'll have to start my own thead.

Get it?

BK

Ok Bill that clears it up a little for me

But you know how forums work, there is no way that you can control a thread and keep it on just the title topic

What I dont get is that you are saying "Hawkeye Works" has nothing to do with Fetzer, yet in the same sentence you admit that it has do with fetzer because it was in his book

I dont know about you Bill but to me Fetzer has a ton to do with Hawkeye works, he PUBLISHED it though Lifton!

And I dont want to jump tp conclusions so I will ask you one last thing

Your saying you dont want Fetzer and Lifton involed in any talks about Hawkeye works because they will argue with others about it? And you wont get the facts about Hawkeye works if Lifton and Fetzer are involved in the thread?

How does that work Bill? Your talking about the guy who wrote it and the guy who published it, if it was not for them you would never know about Hawkeye works, now you dont want those two to be a part of any talks about it because they might start arguing about it?

I hope that im wrong and am just misunderstanding what you are saying

Hi,

I know you can't keep a thread on track, but you can at least try.

I looked for a thread on Noel Twyman's book, which is very important book btw, but I couldn't find one so you can either start one or continue using the Doug Horne thread and we'll discuss Doug Horne and his work somewhere else. I'm pretty easy, either ways okay.

Well, from where I'm sitting, the original word "Hawkeye Works" uttered in regards to the Zapruder film was by Homer McMahon in talking to the ARRB, including Horne, some of which was recorded on audio tape and another version on Horne's notes.

Lifton gets wind of the "Hawkeye Works" angle and mentions it in his rather elongated Conference talk (Lancer or Z-film in Minn.?) - "Pig on a Leash," which was also filmed by David Healey and posted in segments on Youtube, and then published by Fetzer in his anthology TGZFH.

Now the ARRB records, POALeash and TGZFH have all been out for over a decade now, and nobody's done a thing with researching this further until now, we have more details in Doug Horne's Vol. IV, Chapter 14, and thanks to B and compliments of David Lifton we have the complete POALeash and thanks to David H. the Youtube version.

So from where I'm taking all this in, I don't think Prof. Fetzer needs to be consulted any further, after thanking him for the courage of publishing Lifton's POAL and the rest, despite criticism from all quarters.

You can't take a book to a Congressional Hearing and try to introduce it as evidence, but you can call a retired CIA official and have them answer questions under oath.

Therefore, we can successfully get beyond Prof. Fetzer and Dr. Lifton, even though both are qualififed to be what they call Special Expert Witnesses, and go directly to McMahon and the others who worked at the NPIC, all of whom should be required to testify fully, which they didn't do for the ARRB.

Gee Dean, you should get college credit for this stuff,

BK

[Len Colby]

But let me try and let me get this one thing straight. The guy from Kodak - Zavada - in trying to determine the Z-film's authenticity, doesn't use Zapruder's camera but uses a similar make and model?

If the original Z-film was in fact placed through a optical printer then it was copied, then the camera in the optical printer would become the new in-camera original,

I assume you meant "the FILM in the optical printer would become the new in-camera original," the answer is no it would become a 1st generation copy easily distinguishable from an "in-camera original"

"a film that could not be duplicated by Zapruder's camera, which like all manual cameras, typewriters and gun barrels, each has its own unique attributes and anamolies.

Excellent point Bill, I told Tink the same thing in an e-mail, and it pretty much destroys Horne's argument (latter channeled by others) about the supposed discrepancy. It would be unreasonable to expect two different camera to function exactly the same even if they are the same make and model especially 3 decades apart. But that is moot since as Tink demonstrated the frames did go "full flush left".Once again Horne is revealed to be out of his depth.

So it would be impossible to demonstrate proof without using the original camera.

Why wasn't Zavada permitted to use the original Zapruder camera?

I agree it would have been best to use the original camera but contrary to what Horne claims the test shots using an identical camera were consistent with the z-film, while it isn't proof it is further evidence the alterationists are wrong.

[William Kelly]

But let me try and let me get this one thing straight. The guy from Kodak - Zavada - in trying to determine the Z-film's authenticity, doesn't use Zapruder's camera but uses a similar make and model?

If the original Z-film was in fact placed through a optical printer then it was copied, then the camera in the optical printer would become the new in-camera original,

I assume you meant "the FILM in the optical printer would become the new in-camera original," the answer is no it would become a 1st generation copy easily distinguishable from an "in-camera original"

"a film that could not be duplicated by Zapruder's camera, which like all manual cameras, typewriters and gun barrels, each has its own unique attributes and anamolies.

Excellent point Bill, I told Tink the same thing in an e-mail, and it pretty much destroys Horne's argument (latter channeled by others) about the supposed discrepancy. It would be unreasonable to expect two different camera to function exactly the same even if they are the same make and model especially 3 decades apart. But that is moot since as Tink demonstrated the frames did go "full flush left".Once again Horne is revealed to be out of his depth.

So it would be impossible to demonstrate proof without using the original camera.

Why wasn't Zavada permitted to use the original Zapruder camera?

I agree it would have been best to use the original camera but contrary to what Horne claims the test shots using an identical camera were consistent with the z-film, while it isn't proof it is further evidence the alterationists are wrong.

But the new 1st generation copy could not be "easily distinguishable" when compared to the original "in camera" film if the original was not available and the copy was masquaraded as the original, right?

And you still don't answer my question as to why Zapruder's camera wasn't used for the tests?

BK

[Dean Hagerman]

It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without bringing in Prof. Fetzer and David Lifton but I guess that's impossible.

Bill

Why do you keep making statements like this?

How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up?

Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration

Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic

I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic

I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic

Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late

I don't think so Dean.

You and others have taken the Doug Horne thread and made it your little debate about Noel Twyman's book.

As for discussing the Z-film or "Hawkeye Works" without mentioning Fetzer or Lifton will be necessary to get beyone any arguments and determine some facts about both the film, its chain of possession and whether it ever was at "Hawkeye Works."

My purpose isn't to win an internet forum debate, but to determine if there is any evidence of destruction of records, tampering with evidence, theft of evidence, and attempting to locate missing records that I think are still out there and weren't destroyed, like Babuska lady's film, the Secret Service records, the missing briefing boards, etc. I'm also looking for new witnesses, and damn, if they don't show up, as we now have Homer McMahon and his assistant and Dino B., all CIA officers, who, unlike Fetzer, Lifton and other alternationist, their testimony is a little bit harder to discard as foolish nonsense.

I'm looking for evidence of destruction and tamerping with records and new witnesses that can be called to testify under oath before Congress.

None of these things have anything to do with Fetzer, other than the fact that he published Lifton's article "Pig On A Leash" over a decade ago and mentined the "Hawkeye Works" angle, that nobody has done anything on since then.

If and when Congress decides to hold oversight hearings of the JFK Act, and actually look into what the ARRB discovered, and try to determine who destroyed what records and why, then the focus must be on the destroyed, missing and still wrongfully withheld records, and NOT on Professor Fetzer or what David Lifton's opinion is of Bob Groden.

There is a method to my madness, but I have to stay on track, even if you enjoy jumping around and learning Prof. Fetzer's principles on how to win internet debates.

I guess I'll have to start my own thead.

Get it?

BK

Ok Bill that clears it up a little for me

But you know how forums work, there is no way that you can control a thread and keep it on just the title topic

What I dont get is that you are saying "Hawkeye Works" has nothing to do with Fetzer, yet in the same sentence you admit that it has do with fetzer because it was in his book

I dont know about you Bill but to me Fetzer has a ton to do with Hawkeye works, he PUBLISHED it though Lifton!

And I dont want to jump tp conclusions so I will ask you one last thing

Your saying you dont want Fetzer and Lifton involed in any talks about Hawkeye works because they will argue with others about it? And you wont get the facts about Hawkeye works if Lifton and Fetzer are involved in the thread?

How does that work Bill? Your talking about the guy who wrote it and the guy who published it, if it was not for them you would never know about Hawkeye works, now you dont want those two to be a part of any talks about it because they might start arguing about it?

I hope that im wrong and am just misunderstanding what you are saying

Hi,

I know you can't keep a thread on track, but you can at least try.

I looked for a thread on Noel Twyman's book, which is very important book btw, but I couldn't find one so you can either start one or continue using the Doug Horne thread and we'll discuss Doug Horne and his work somewhere else. I'm pretty easy, either ways okay.

Well, from where I'm sitting, the original word "Hawkeye Works" uttered in regards to the Zapruder film was by Homer McMahon in talking to the ARRB, including Horne, some of which was recorded on audio tape and another version on Horne's notes.

Lifton gets wind of the "Hawkeye Works" angle and mentions it in his rather elongated Conference talk (Lancer or Z-film in Minn.?) - "Pig on a Leash," which was also filmed by David Healey and posted in segments on Youtube, and then published by Fetzer in his anthology TGZFH.

Now the ARRB records, POALeash and TGZFH have all been out for over a decade now, and nobody's done a thing with researching this further until now, we have more details in Doug Horne's Vol. IV, Chapter 14, and thanks to B and compliments of David Lifton we have the complete POALeash and thanks to David H. the Youtube version.

So from where I'm taking all this in, I don't think Prof. Fetzer needs to be consulted any further, after thanking him for the courage of publishing Lifton's POAL and the rest, despite criticism from all quarters.

You can't take a book to a Congressional Hearing and try to introduce it as evidence, but you can call a retired CIA official and have them answer questions under oath.

Therefore, we can successfully get beyond Prof. Fetzer and Dr. Lifton, even though both are qualififed to be what they call Special Expert Witnesses, and go directly to McMahon and the others who worked at the NPIC, all of whom should be required to testify fully, which they didn't do for the ARRB.

Gee Dean, you should get college credit for this stuff,

BK

I understand, thank you Bill

It just seems like you are always selling Fetzer and other alterationists short, when now that you are starting to see that we are right you should embrace Fetzer and his work.

Thats just my opinion, keep the fight going forward Bill, dont think for a second that I dont admire or care about what you are doing for the case, because I do

Dean

[Dean Hagerman]

John

Is it possible to merge mine and Craigs debate over Twymans "Bloody Treason" in the Doug Horne thread?

On the Brewania forum that I am a Mod at I am able to merge posts from an old thread and start a new thread with those posts

Just asking, no problem if you cant I will start a new thread with my next post to Craig

Thanks John

Dean

[Bernice Moore]

But let me try and let me get this one thing straight. The guy from Kodak - Zavada - in trying to determine the Z-film's authenticity, doesn't use Zapruder's camera but uses a similar make and model?

If the original Z-film was in fact placed through a optical printer then it was copied, then the camera in the optical printer would become the new in-camera original,

I assume you meant "the FILM in the optical printer would become the new in-camera original," the answer is no it would become a 1st generation copy easily distinguishable from an "in-camera original"

"a film that could not be duplicated by Zapruder's camera, which like all manual cameras, typewriters and gun barrels, each has its own unique attributes and anamolies.

Excellent point Bill, I told Tink the same thing in an e-mail, and it pretty much destroys Horne's argument (latter channeled by others) about the supposed discrepancy. It would be unreasonable to expect two different camera to function exactly the same even if they are the same make and model especially 3 decades apart. But that is moot since as Tink demonstrated the frames did go "full flush left".Once again Horne is revealed to be out of his depth.

So it would be impossible to demonstrate proof without using the original camera.

Horne writes:

<quote on>

In the Spring of 1999 I discovered an apparently serious inconsistency between the degree of intersprocket penetration on the extant film in the Archives (which was shot at full zoom setting), and the degree of intersprocket penetration in the test film shot at full zoom by Rollie Zavada in identical-model cameras. To make a long story short, I discovered that the degree of intersprocket penetration on the extant film was consistently 'full flush left,' or all the way from the projected image frame out to the full left-hand margin of each sprocket hole -- whereas the degree of intersprocket penetration on the test film shot by Zavada in the same make and model of Bell and Howell movie camera either did not go fully to the left of the intersprocket area at all - OR IN SOME CASES WHERE IT DID, it only occurred intermittently, and did not occur in every single frame as it does in the extant film in the Archives.

<quote off>

INSIDE THE ARRB, p. 1282

Why wasn't Zavada permitted to use the original Zapruder camera?

I agree it would have been best to use the original camera but contrary to what Horne claims the test shots using an identical camera were consistent with the z-film, while it isn't proof it is further evidence the alterationists are wrong.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

All,

After I decimated Lamson on the Doug Horne thread, Tink has now reappeared to create a massive diversion over the identification of Hawkeye Works. He brings me in because of his pathological obsession with me, even if I have had no more to do with the discovery of Hawkeye Works than to publish "Pig on a Leash" in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). The credit goes to Horne and to Lifton.

I do not understand why Bill Kelly wants to get in the middle of this, except that I have called him out for his incompetent review of MURDER. He even admits that he had no background or interest in the medical, ballistic, and photographic evidence, which makes you wonder why he would review a book that is chock full of exactly that. He even seems to think that HOAX was published ten years ago!

Not only is Josiah here to draw attention away from the bizarre solipsism of Craig Lamson but he never wants to engage with the real issues. Horne, after all, published two chapters in MURDER, which appeared in the year 2000. One concerned proof of a second supplemental brain examination with a second brain. The other was a report of Homer McMahon having determined there were six to eight shots from at least three directions.

These would have been worth discussing, but Josiah would rather trade in trivialities than confront the massive evidence that demonstrates the film is a fake. Indeed, that includes the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (1) the blow-out of the "blob" to the right-front; (2) the X-rays with missing mass to the right-front; (3) the caption published in LIFE for frame 313; and (4) Zapruder's depiction on TV of a right-front wound that did not exist.

I published this in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", which anyone can google. Given the extraordinary exchanges between us related to the Moorman Polaroid, it would have been unsurprising in the extreme for Tink to have weighed in on this, when it turns out to be the single most powerful proof that the film is a fabrication. But, rather astonishingly, he apparently had better ways to spend his copious free time.

Tink prefers softer targets and does everything he can to avoid the real deal. If he really had serious intent to get to the truth of the matter, then a post that I put up two weeks ago would have provided an ideal opportunity for him to have targeted Doug Horne and me in relation to the newest news about film fabrication, which came from his recruiting experts on film restoration to study an optically enhanced, 6k version of the film, which led them to gasp with astonishment over the amateurish qualify of the fakery.

The massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head had been painted over in black and the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, just as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman and as he had reported in BLOODY TREASON (1998). But Tink is never going to address the real issues, because it runs too high a risk that his role as professional obfuscator extraordinaire would be more easily exposed. Consider this post, which I could have written just for him:

James H. Fetzer

Dec 8 2009, 10:36 PM

Post #60

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 310

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________

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

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

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

By Douglas P. Horne

Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassinations Records Review Board

Table of Contents

Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery p. 1185

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________

The number of experts who concur in these professional judgments ("expert opinions") has now grown to seven--or eight, if we count Roderick Ryan, who, by the way, received the Academy Award in 2000 for his contributions to special effects in cinema. If Tink wants to pursue the Lamson line--that we can only know what we ourselves have been able to prove on our own--which would drastically constrain our knowledge of physics, chemistry, and biology, not to mention cinematography!--then we can return to the "Doug Horne" thread and discover the bizarre mind-set of Craig Lamson, where Lamson's posts provide further substantiation of my diagnosis of his mental defect in adopting a solipsistic attitude toward the world: if it is not part of his system of beliefs, it is non-existent or false!

Lamson even denigrates reliance upon observation because, he claims, it entails interpretation! Yet he poses as an expert on photographs and films, which cannot possibly be subjected to analysis without dependence upon observation and interpretation! So by Lamson's standards, we should dismiss his work on photographs and films BECAUSE IT IS DEPENDENT UPON OBSERVATION AND INTERPRETATION! This is a nice example of the absurdity of his position, which reduces the scope of available knowledge to the contents of his own mind! Could anything be more bizarre? Now I confidently predict that Tink will try the Lamson gambit and invite us to disregard the best work by the best people in all these things. That, after all, has been his modus operandi of long standing. If he can't obfuscate the truth one way, he'll try another.

Jim

FETZER AND LIFTON CHANNEL DOUG HORNE: TRULY OR FALSELY?

We first heard of “Hawkeyeworks” at the 1998 Lancer Conference. Since that time, NPIC, Doug Horne’s interviews with Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon and associated details have become a staple of Fetzer’s series of books on the assassination. His Great Zapruder Film Hoax, published in 2003, featured a long article by David Lifton entitled, “Pig on a Leash.” Written in a kind of jaunty prose much more enjoyable to read than the usual assassination fare, this article laid out in detail Lifon’s long history with the film and his equally long attempt to show it was faked-up. Surprisingly, in a piece that runs on for 117 pages of small print, Lifton offers exactly one fact to show the Zapruder film has been altered. This fact, says Lifton, came to his attention through Doug Horne.

Horne had frequent contact with Roland Zavada as Zavada carried out his work for the AARB. According to Lifton, Horne explained to him that Zavada had come upon one significant indication that the Zapruder film was faked-up and never admitted this in his final report. According to Lifton, this signal indication of Zapruder fakery was what he called “the full flush left problem.” Here is how Lifton explained it in the first printing of his article:

"This point is crucial: in the case of the supposed camera original, there is not just “some image” in the sprocket hole area (the image doesn’t just “bleed over” a little bit); rather, the image goes all the way to the left! To the left margin of the film!

That this is so can clearly be seen even on the frames of the Zapruder film published in Volume 18 of the 26 Volumes. But is that possible? Can the Zapruder lens do that? Can it put an image on the film that is full flush left?

In connection with his ARRB work, Zavada purchased some half dozen cameras at garage sales, he took them apart, he put them back together. The man really worked hard on a wide variety of problems and issues.

And then he went to Dallas and took test shots, putting his wife in Dealey Plaza, and exposed all sorts of scenes at a variety of settings.

Then these test pictures – these test shots – went into an appendix in the final report, which was delivered within hours of the ARRB going out of existence. A report that was supposed to 'explain the anomalies.'

What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance – not a single one – could Rollie Zavada get the images to go full flush left.

It couldn’t be done, because the camera just isn’t designed that way. " (TGZFH, p. 397)

In the second printing, Lifton explained it this way:

"Turning to Figures 4-1 and 4-2 [of the Zavada Report], the Zapruder frames, the Zapruder frames Rollie had photographed at the National Archives, it was clear that these frames were out full flush left. All the way to the left.

Then Doug compared those with the test shots Rollie made in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder’s perch with one of his Zapruder-type cameras. One strip showed [his] wife standing in the street, another showed a red truck passing through. Another test shot, his figure 4-26, showed his wife standing in front of their garage in Rochester. In each case, Rollie varied the telephoto setting and, as the zoom increased, the left margin moved somewhat to the left. But, contrary to what Rollie had told me, there was quite a problem.

The test frames did not appear similar to those from the original Zapruder film. It was a simple matter of geometry: Rollie’s clearly did not go consistently full flush left." (TGZFH, p.97)

To this charge of cover-up, Rollie Zavada responded in his usual calm, mild way. As Lifton points out, “Zavada replied with a statement, posted on the Internet. He claimed his test shots proved the case – that his test shots proved full penetration of the intersprocket area...(TGZFH, p. 402).

Lifton and Fetzer must have felt that their proof in this area was wanting. In the second printing of TGZFH, they added photos purporting to show Zavada’s test shots. In the text under the test shots, appears this claim: “Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [Zavada] replicate the continuous ‘full flush left’ phenomenon seen on the previous two pages” (TGZFH, p. 400).

So let’s see if what Fetzer and Lifton (channeling Horne) say is correct. Is it true or false that using other cameras of the same make and model Zavada was unable to produce “full flush left penetration?”

First, here is a shot of several frames from the Zapruder film used by Zavada as “Figure 4-2" and commented upon by Lifton/Horne:

Next is the published Fetzer/Lifton’s version of a test shot by Zavada showing a truck in Dealey Plaza:

Next is the actual photo as it appears in Figure 3-12 of Zavada’s Study 3:

Finally, here is another test shot by Zavada using a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder’s. Note that this test shot also shows “full flush left penetration.”

I want to point out that I wasn’t swift enough to get all this straight. It was Rollie Zavada back in 2003 who called my attention to this. With respect to this later test shot he wrote on a Post-It: “Note full intersprocket image penetration.” With respect to the former test shot of the pickup truck in Dealey Plaza,"[/i] he wrote on a Post-It: “Note: Full inter-sprocket image penetration of truck scene taken in Dallas. Doug Horne missed this in my report!”

I want to make two things clear.

(1) Doug Horne had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer. When Horne’s book arrives, I look forward to seeing whether this earlier bogus claim remains in any way a part of his discussion of the Zapruder film.

(2) What Fetzer and perhaps Lifton did here is simply outrageous. They took one of Rollie Zavada’s test shots. They published it in degraded form and used that form to claim it showed the opposite of what it does show! For all I know, this was done without either Horne’s or Lifton’s knowledge and permission. Similar cases occur in other Fetzer books. In Murder in Dealey Plaza, he circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine windshield and labeled it, “The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” In The 9/11 Conspiracy, he publishes a photo of World Trade Center 7 with a caption that states, “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” The only problem is that the photo was taken in 1997 and the “modest fire at street level” is an orange Calder statue installed on the mezzanine level of the building!

Josiah Thompson

Edited December 29, 2009 by James H. Fetzer