Fetzer & Lifton channel Doug Horne: Truly or Falsely?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Sometimes your ignorance simply astounds me. Are you saying that JFK's brains actually did bulge out to the right-front? Because, unless that is the case, then the film is a fake. And we know that they were blown out to the left rear. If you have studied David Mantik's work on the X-rays, then you know that they were altered to conceal the massive blow out to the left rear. His original studies were published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).

Now as I explained in my response to PI Thompson, we have overwhelming evidence that they were blown out to the left-rear, including the discussion of the physicians' reports in the chapter by Gary Aguilar in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). Inspection of the X-rays shows that there is missing mass to the right front, but the right-front of his head was not blown off. Even Jackie reported that, from the front, he looked just fine, but that she had a hard time keeping his brains and skull together at the back of his head. No one reported otherwise.

LIFE Magazine published a caption for Z313 that stated the direction from which the bullet had been fired had been determined by its entry at the back of his head and his brains blown out to the right front. And Abraham Zapruder went on television the night of the assassination and demonstrated the blow-out to the right-front, an event that did not occur. You can observe him doing that in a photo from his appearance that I included in a chapter about fake reports about the assassination on page 435 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).

Now since all of this has been proven--and I have verified that the X-rays show this missing mass, which is not simply an artifact of overexposure, as Josiah's friend, Gary Aguilar, told me in Chicago on the occasion of our first conversation, which I thought at the time was very odd--I don't understand your concerns here. If we believe in logic and evidence, we understand the case. Your remarks tell me that you haven't a clue! I never cease to be amazed at the ignorance of some of those who post here with great confidence but know so little about it.

So here we have the "Z-film is fake" theory stretching ever outward, to the point where Zapruder and Greer are part of the conspiracy...

This, to me, makes little sense, as both the Z-film in evidence and Zapruder's and Greer's statements suggest there was a conspiracy.

Now, I am open minded about the possibility aspects of the film were altered (e.g. whether or not the back of JFK's head was painted in), but believe whole-heartedly that any argument placed before the public in which both the Z-film and autopsy photos are purported to be largely fake is a sure loser.

Bill, since you seem to be watching this thread with an eagle-eye, perhaps you can explain why you think an argument that everything is fake has more traction than an argument that the already-accepted evidence has been deliberately misinterpreted?

Do you really believe people will believe 70 and 80 year-olds with conflicting stories, whose stories only add up when cherry-picked and fed through Horne's Lifton-influenced filter?

Whether or not Horne is right, I just don't think his "take" on much of the evidence will ever "play in Peoria".

As but one example, in his Black Op radio interview he said he found Saundra Spencer to be the most credible of witnesses. It seemed clear to me from this that what she said fed into his theory, and that this made her credible in his eyes.

But where is the proof of her credibility? Was she asked questions regarding other events in 1963? Were these compared to the known facts to determine if her memory was remotely accurate?

I mean, we can't go into 50th anniversary debates citing Jean Hill, Beverly Oliver, Gordon Arnold, Joe O'Donnell, Robert Knudsen, and Saundra Spencer as our best proofs of conspiracy, now can we?

I'd bet the farm that McAdams, Holland, and Bugliosi all hope we will do so.

Edited December 29, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

So here we have the "Z-film is fake" theory stretching ever outward, to the point where Zapruder and Greer are part of the conspiracy...

This, to me, makes little sense, as both the Z-film in evidence and Zapruder's and Greer's statements suggest there was a conspiracy.

Now, I am open minded about the possibility aspects of the film were altered (e.g. whether or not the back of JFK's head was painted in), but believe whole-heartedly that any argument placed before the public in which both the Z-film and autopsy photos are purported to be largely fake is a sure loser.

Bill, since you seem to be watching this thread with an eagle-eye, perhaps you can explain why you think an argument that everything is fake has more traction than an argument that the already-accepted evidence has been deliberately misinterpreted?

Do you really believe people will believe 70 and 80 year-olds with conflicting stories, whose stories only add up when cherry-picked and fed through Horne's Lifton-influenced filter?

Whether or not Horne is right, I just don't think his "take" on much of the evidence will ever "play in Peoria".

As but one example, in his Black Op radio interview he said he found Saundra Spencer to be the most credible of witnesses. It seemed clear to me from this that what she said fed into his theory, and that this made her credible in his eyes.

But where is the proof of her credibility? Was she asked questions regarding other events in 1963? Were these compared to the known facts to determine if her memory was remotely accurate?

I mean, we can't go into 50th anniversary debates citing Jean Hill, Beverly Oliver, Gordon Arnold, Joe O'Donnell, Robert Knudsen, and Saundra Spencer as our best proofs of conspiracy, now can we?

I'd bet the farm that McAdams, Holland, and Bugliosi all hope we will do so.

Hi Pat,

First off, we don't have to prove conspiracy, only that a crime was committed and there's a suspect other than the Lone Framed Patsy.

As for the content of the Z-film, it can't be used to prove anything, though it certainly says to me that there's a head shot from the front, but others see it and say differently.

Also, the alteration of the z-film is not the best proof of crime or of conspiracy, since there are many others that are not debatable and do lead to other suspects.

As for the memory of 80 year old Dino B., I would take that memory anytime, though he also leads to others who worked at the NPIC and CIA who aren't so old and whose memories either confirm or contradict him and McMahon and his assistant.

Besides Dino, there's also the 80 year old Pentagon historian who just recently retired who wrote much of the Warren Report, and wrote a more recent paper on the problems of accounting for the history of non-governmental defense contractors like Kodak, Bell Hell, Collins Radio, Lockheed, IBM etc., which also comes into play here, since they are not subject to JFK Act or FOIA.

And Greer, the uneducated Protestant Irishman who drove JFK to his death is photogaphed in TT's book shown leaving his WC deposition laughing (with Kellerman?), both suspects in my book as well as Doug Horne's.

We all judge witnesses differently, but some get preferential treatment because they were at the right place at the right time, and we weren't so we have to trust their recollections and reports, and everybody makes up their own mind.

You made the decision long ago that the medical evidence was important and you followed it.

But the bottom line is that if Justice if waiting for final proof of conspiracy, that would be a gunshot wound to the front of JFK's head, and you don't have to be a CSI student to know that in is small and out is big.

Doug Horne, while condensing the millions of pages of records released under the JFK Act to five volumes, also includes a hundred items that can be debated, but if only one of them is correct - ie. there were two brain exams and two different brains in the autopsy, then that is enough to kick in the Constitution - force a new, proper forensic autopsy, and grand jury investigation into the crimes related to the constitution, not only conspiracy but the destruction of evidence, the tampering with evidence, perjury, and oh, yea, homicide.

Doug Horne can be wrong about everything else, but if that one fact can be positively determined, and I think it has, then the game is up for those who have called for "Proof," and I believe there are a dozen or more other examples of similar crimes that can be proved.

Bill Kelly

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor Fetzer,

Okay, I'll ask the question again. You published a photo taken by Zavada as part of one of his studies. The photo clearly shows "full flush left image penetration." You published the photo in degraded form where it is impossible to see that it clearly demonstrates "full flush left image penetration." Referring to this photo, the text states: "Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [that is, Zavada] replicate the continuous 'full flush left' phenomenon seen on the previous two pages..." (TGZFW, p.400).

In short, do you believe it is honest scholarship to publish a photo in such degraded form that no one can see it actually proves the opposite of what you say it proves?

Josiah Thompson

PI Thompson,

Appendix H on "The Zavada Report" contains no photos, so it doesn't include this one. And having scanned "Pig on a Leash", the only photos there are on pages 398-401. I take it the ones that you are asking about are on page 400, the bottom two on the right-hand side. These are in black-and-white, of course, so they don't show color contrasts. But you would have to ask David Lifton, who provided the content for the chapter.

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper should not have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. I suspect that you are trying to make something of the failure of black-and-white photos to retain color contrasts.

While we are at it, I noticed there is one additional diagram in his chapter, namely, the McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328, which you published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Without suggesting that you were obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. How can you explain this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning?

James H. Fetzer

Professor Fetzer,

Just one simple, direct question....

The photo you published from Zavada's report shows a red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza. It clearly shows "full flush left image penetration" (see image provided in thread). Why did you publish it in degraded form along with a caption saying it proved the opposite?

Josiah Thompson

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:

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

PI Thompson,

My best guess is that, given the black-and-white image on the page, I did not notice any discrepancy between the photo and the claim. The image in the black-and-white looked as though it did not go "full flush left". Color photos in black-and-white are always "degraded", like many in your own book. But you are directing your question to the wrong guy. This is David Lifton's chapter and I'm sure he would be very pleased to hear from you. In fact, I have already copied him on this exchange.

But you are the right guy to answer my question, which concerns your own work, not that of others, namely: The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? Why didn't you pursue this inconsistency with zeal?

James H. Fetzer

Professor Fetzer,

Okay, I'll ask the question again. You published a photo taken by Zavada as part of one of his studies. The photo clearly shows "full flush left image penetration." You published the photo in degraded form where it is impossible to see that it clearly demonstrates "full flush left image penetration." Referring to this photo, the text states: "Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [that is, Zavada] replicate the continuous 'full flush left' phenomenon seen on the previous two pages..." (TGZFW, p.400).

In short, do you believe it is honest scholarship to publish a photo in such degraded form that no one can see it actually proves the opposite of what you say it proves?

Josiah Thompson

PI Thompson,

Appendix H on "The Zavada Report" contains no photos, so it doesn't include this one. And having scanned "Pig on a Leash", the only photos there are on pages 398-401. I take it the ones that you are asking about are on page 400, the bottom two on the right-hand side. These are in black-and-white, of course, so they don't show color contrasts. But you would have to ask David Lifton, who provided the content for the chapter.

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper should not have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. I suspect that you are trying to make something of the failure of black-and-white photos to retain color contrasts.

While we are at it, I noticed there is one additional diagram in his chapter, namely, the McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328, which you published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Without suggesting that you were obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. How can you explain this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning?

James H. Fetzer

Professor Fetzer,

Just one simple, direct question....

The photo you published from Zavada's report shows a red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza. It clearly shows "full flush left image penetration" (see image provided in thread). Why did you publish it in degraded form along with a caption saying it proved the opposite?

Josiah Thompson

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:

[Josiah Thompson]

Thanks John Costella,

You are absolutely correct. David Lifton referred to the secret Kodak plant as "Eagle Eye Works" at the Lancer 1998 conference. Your 2003 doubts about the "full flush left" argument would appear to have been vindicated. Back then, David Lifton was claiming that no other camera of the same make and model could possibly produce "full flush left image penetration." Apparently, Doug Horne now admits that this is not true while holding that other cameras only "intermittently" achieve "full flush left image penetration." I am told that another researcher sent Doug Horne film taken in Dallas from a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder's that shows "consistent" not "intermittent" "full frame left image penetration." If so, the "full flush left" argument would seem to be a dead puppy.

I look forward to reading what you have to say about Horne's latest claims.

Josiah Thompson

I just wanted to comment here that some of the questions asked here may be clarified by the videos of the 2003 Duluth Symposium, which Rich DellaRosa kindly uploaded to YouTube recently. There are links to them on one of my web pages:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk

Having watched most of them when Rich posted them (I had not seen them before), two points stuck out regarding this thread:

1. David Lifton appears to first use the real term "Hawkeyeworks" in Duluth 2003, saying that he previously referred to it as "Eagle Eye Works" so that he wouldn't get busted for revealing classified information. If it was the latter term that he used at Lancer 1998, then that solves that mystery.

2. During Lifton's presentation, I butted in with a lengthy disagreement about his "full flush left" argument. I remain unconvinced.

Just thought I would mention this, as it is one rare case where we can "go to the videotape".

John

[Josiah Thompson]

Mr. Fokes,

I was using "channeling" in what I hoped might be a humorous way to say "speaking for." I certainly did not mean "channeling" in the technical sense and I am sorry if I misled you.

I think it is relevant to point out that Lifton and Fetzer were using a stronger version of the "full flesh left" argument back in 2003 when Lifton could write: "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). From what you say, Doug Horne is no longer contending this but admitting that other cameras can achieve "full flush left image penetration" from time to time. I have also heard that another researcher took a camera like Zapruder's to Dealey Plaza and ended up with film showing consistent "full flush left image penetration." I don't know the researcher's name but I was told he sent the film to Doug Horne. Do you know anything about this?

Once again, can I substitute "speaking for" for "channeling?"

Josiah Thompson

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.

Horne states quite clearly that "in some cases" the ZAVADA test film did go full flush left but only "intermittently," and "not in every single frame as it does in the extant film in the Archives."

You can discuss Horne's book without the distraction of Thompson's bizarre topic of channeling. As he stated:

"Doug Horne had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer."

Just ignore this thread.

When Thompson HAS read Horne's book, perhaps he will start a topic on Horne's argument rather than the claims of two other people!

But then again, his topic was really not the argument in Horne's book at all.

Regards,

Peter Fokes

Edited December 29, 2009 by Josiah Thompson

[Dean Hagerman]

But you are the right guy to answer my question, which concerns your own work, not that of others, namely: The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? Why didn't you pursue this inconsistency with zeal?

I would love to hear the answer to this question, since I guess my question and comments to Tink are invisible

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

PI Thompson,

I find it curious that you would accept John Costella's rejection of the "full flush left" argument to be persuasive when you have rejected his proofs that the film is a fabrication. I am starting to get the impression that you accept the views of those with whom you agree and reject the views of those with whom you disagree REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE. If you are going to accept the rejection of the "full flush left" argument BECAUSE IT IS JOHN'S OPINION, you ought to accept his conclusion that the film is a fabrication. But we are discovering that consistency, methodological or otherwise, is not your strong suit. I would have thought you would at least wait to hear David Lifton's response.

On the other hand, you are the right guy to answer my question, which concerns your own work, not that of others, namely: The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? Why didn't you pursue this inconsistency with zeal? Now I hope you are not going to force me to ask you again and again. Why duck and hide? I thought you were a "stand up" guy wiling to answer every question? Why not this one? Tell us.

James H. Fetzer

Thanks John Costella,

You are absolutely correct. David Lifton referred to the secret Kodak plant as "Eagle Eye Works" at the Lancer 1998 conference. Your 2003 doubts about the "full flush left" argument would appear to have been vindicated. Back then, David Lifton was claiming that no other camera of the same make and model could possibly produce "full flush left image penetration." Apparently, Doug Horne now admits that this is not true while holding that other cameras only "intermittently" achieve "full flush left image penetration." I am told that another researcher sent Doug Horne film taken in Dallas from a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder's that shows "consistent" not "intermittent" "full frame left image penetration." If so, the "full flush left" argument would seem to be a dead puppy.

I look forward to reading what you have to say about Horne's latest claims.

Josiah Thompson

I just wanted to comment here that some of the questions asked here may be clarified by the videos of the 2003 Duluth Symposium, which Rich DellaRosa kindly uploaded to YouTube recently. There are links to them on one of my web pages:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk

Having watched most of them when Rich posted them (I had not seen them before), two points stuck out regarding this thread:

1. David Lifton appears to first use the real term "Hawkeyeworks" in Duluth 2003, saying that he previously referred to it as "Eagle Eye Works" so that he wouldn't get busted for revealing classified information. If it was the latter term that he used at Lancer 1998, then that solves that mystery.

2. During Lifton's presentation, I butted in with a lengthy disagreement about his "full flush left" argument. I remain unconvinced.

Just thought I would mention this, as it is one rare case where we can "go to the videotape".

John

Edited December 29, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor Fetzer,

Your answer, then, is, "The other guy did it!" Fine, you just edit books. You bear no responsibility for visual effects in your books that trick the reader.

As for the McClelland quote in Six Seconds, what about it? It is part of a chapter that marshals many discriptions of the head would to point out there is a difference between what was observed at Parkland and what the autopsy records show. Back then, that was sort of a new point to make. I am in no way obliged to have done forty some years ago what you deem is appropriate. Just more distraction, eh?

Josiah Thompson

PI Thompson,

My best guess is that, given the black-and-white image on the page, I did not notice any discrepancy between the photo and the claim. The image in the black-and-white looked as though it did not go "full flush left". Color photos in black-and-white are always "degraded", like many in your own book. But you are directing your question to the wrong guy. This is David Lifton's chapter and I'm sure he would be very pleased to hear from you. In fact, I have already copied him on this exchange.

But you are the right guy to answer my question, which concerns your own work, not that of others, namely: The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? Why didn't you pursue this inconsistency with zeal?

James H. Fetzer

Professor Fetzer,

Okay, I'll ask the question again. You published a photo taken by Zavada as part of one of his studies. The photo clearly shows "full flush left image penetration." You published the photo in degraded form where it is impossible to see that it clearly demonstrates "full flush left image penetration." Referring to this photo, the text states: "Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [that is, Zavada] replicate the continuous 'full flush left' phenomenon seen on the previous two pages..." (TGZFW, p.400).

In short, do you believe it is honest scholarship to publish a photo in such degraded form that no one can see it actually proves the opposite of what you say it proves?

Josiah Thompson

PI Thompson,

Appendix H on "The Zavada Report" contains no photos, so it doesn't include this one. And having scanned "Pig on a Leash", the only photos there are on pages 398-401. I take it the ones that you are asking about are on page 400, the bottom two on the right-hand side. These are in black-and-white, of course, so they don't show color contrasts. But you would have to ask David Lifton, who provided the content for the chapter.

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper should not have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. I suspect that you are trying to make something of the failure of black-and-white photos to retain color contrasts.

While we are at it, I noticed there is one additional diagram in his chapter, namely, the McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328, which you published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Without suggesting that you were obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. How can you explain this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning?

James H. Fetzer

Professor Fetzer,

Just one simple, direct question....

The photo you published from Zavada's report shows a red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza. It clearly shows "full flush left image penetration" (see image provided in thread). Why did you publish it in degraded form along with a caption saying it proved the opposite?

Josiah Thompson

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:

[Paul Rigby]

Professor Fetzer,

Your answer, then, is, "The other guy did it!" Fine, you just edit books. You bear no responsibility for visual effects in your books that trick the reader.

As for the McClelland quote in Six Seconds, what about it? It is part of a chapter that marshals many discriptions of the head would to point out there is a difference between what was observed at Parkland and what the autopsy records show. Back then, that was sort of a new point to make. I am in no way obliged to have done forty some years ago what you deem is appropriate. Just more distraction, eh?

Josiah Thompson

Um. Thompson on McClelland in SSID. A tad inadequate, that explanation, perhaps? Let's revisit a classic piece of Thompsonian "honesty":

Or, How to make an exit wound into an entrance wound…

Yet our most detailed description of the Kennedy head wound appears in the testimony of Parkland Physician Dr. Robert N. McClelland:

“As I took the position at the head of the table…I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded through the scalp …posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.”

Dr. McClelland is quite clearly describing an impact on the right-hand side of the head that blasted backward… (1)

Was McClelland doing any such thing? Not according to the Admission Note made out by McClelland on the afternoon of the coup, which is to be found within the Warren Report itself (2):

Cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple (3)

As Thompson knew full well, when asked by Arlen Specter whether he stood by this verdict – the heroic lawyer, it should be noted, could not bring himself to specify out loud what that verdict was – McClelland replied in the affirmative” (4).

1. Six Seconds in Dallas (Bernard Geis Associates, 1967), p.107, citing 6WCH33.

2. Warren Report, Appendix VIII, Medical Reports from Doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., p.527.

3. In Commission Exhibit 392, the two-page submission from McClelland, timed at 4:45pm on 22 November 1963, referred to in 2) is again reproduced in17WCH12.

4. 6WCH35.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

PI Thompson,

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper cannot have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. It is neither a moral or a mental lapse to not observe what was not observable due to the transition from color to black-and-white.

But your lapse appears to be of a different character altogether. The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328 was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? You didn't notice the difference?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Since you could be thought to have been obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency--then or now?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. I invite you to clarify and correct this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning.

My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?

James H. Fetzer

Professor Fetzer,

Your answer, then, is, "The other guy did it!" Fine, you just edit books. You bear no responsibility for visual effects in your books that trick the reader.

As for the McClelland quote in Six Seconds, what about it? It is part of a chapter that marshals many discriptions of the head would to point out there is a difference between what was observed at Parkland and what the autopsy records show. Back then, that was sort of a new point to make. I am in no way obliged to have done forty some years ago what you deem is appropriate. Just more distraction, eh?

Josiah Thompson

PI Thompson,

My best guess is that, given the black-and-white image on the page, I did not notice any discrepancy between the photo and the claim. The image in the black-and-white looked as though it did not go "full flush left". Color photos in black-and-white are always "degraded", like many in your own book. But you are directing your question to the wrong guy. This is David Lifton's chapter and I'm sure he would be very pleased to hear from you. In fact, I have already copied him on this exchange.

But you are the right guy to answer my question, which concerns your own work, not that of others, namely: The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? Why didn't you pursue this inconsistency with zeal?

James H. Fetzer

Professor Fetzer,

Okay, I'll ask the question again. You published a photo taken by Zavada as part of one of his studies. The photo clearly shows "full flush left image penetration." You published the photo in degraded form where it is impossible to see that it clearly demonstrates "full flush left image penetration." Referring to this photo, the text states: "Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [that is, Zavada] replicate the continuous 'full flush left' phenomenon seen on the previous two pages..." (TGZFW, p.400).

In short, do you believe it is honest scholarship to publish a photo in such degraded form that no one can see it actually proves the opposite of what you say it proves?

Josiah Thompson

PI Thompson,

Appendix H on "The Zavada Report" contains no photos, so it doesn't include this one. And having scanned "Pig on a Leash", the only photos there are on pages 398-401. I take it the ones that you are asking about are on page 400, the bottom two on the right-hand side. These are in black-and-white, of course, so they don't show color contrasts. But you would have to ask David Lifton, who provided the content for the chapter.

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper should not have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. I suspect that you are trying to make something of the failure of black-and-white photos to retain color contrasts.

While we are at it, I noticed there is one additional diagram in his chapter, namely, the McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328, which you published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Without suggesting that you were obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. How can you explain this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning?

James H. Fetzer

Professor Fetzer,

Just one simple, direct question....

The photo you published from Zavada's report shows a red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza. It clearly shows "full flush left image penetration" (see image provided in thread). Why did you publish it in degraded form along with a caption saying it proved the opposite?

Josiah Thompson

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:

Edited December 30, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Peter Fokes]

When Thompson HAS read Horne's book, perhaps he will start a topic on Horne's argument rather than the claims of two other people!

But then again, his topic was really not the argument in Horne's book at all.

It is the ARGUMENT that matters, not the person making it. If the subject is Z-film alteration, then why shouldn't Horne's contribution be discussed in the context of similar claims made by others?

Hello Ray,

I am simply saying that Thompson was correct to make the point that Horne "had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer."

That was *their* claim (their argument). Horne's claim is different.

Certainly you are correct. It is the argument that matters. But if you are discussing the argument of Fetzer, well, that is one argument.

If you are discussing the argument of Horne, then that is another argument.

By all means discuss Horne's contribution in the context of similar claims (arguments) by others. But distinguish between their arguments and claims.

One poster stated that the shortfalls in Fetzer and Lifton's argument reveal that Horne was out of his depth! Perhaps he made that mistake simply because he thought the claims of Fetzer, Lifton and Horne were the same. They are not the same.

Certainly you do not agree that if X says 2+2 is 5, then Y is wrong even if Y says 2+2 is 4.

If you(not YOU in particular) do agree, then heaven help the person who does not have a firewall around their arguments to prevent faulty channeling by others!

So you (Ray, in particular) are correct: 1) the argument matters. But keep your comments about X's argument in the context of X's claims; and keep your comments about Y's argument is the context of Y's argument. They are not the SAME argument.

Cheers,

Peter Fokes

[Peter Fokes]

Mr. Fokes,

I was using "channeling" in what I hoped might be a humorous way to say "speaking for." I certainly did not mean "channeling" in the technical sense and I am sorry if I misled you.

I think it is relevant to point out that Lifton and Fetzer were using a stronger version of the "full flesh left" argument back in 2003 when Lifton could write: "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). From what you say, Doug Horne is no longer contending this but admitting that other cameras can achieve "full flush left image penetration" from time to time. I have also heard that another researcher took a camera like Zapruder's to Dealey Plaza and ended up with film showing consistent "full flush left image penetration." I don't know the researcher's name but I was told he sent the film to Doug Horne. Do you know anything about this?

Once again, can I substitute "speaking for" for "channeling?"

Josiah Thompson

Hi,

Assuming Lifton was correct in stating what Horne "noticed" (and it is hearsay coming from Lifton), then Horne has changed his argument in his new book. OF course, I have no idea of what else Horne did notice that Lifton did not mention at that time! So I would not go as far as you do when you state "Horne is no longer contending this" because I only have your quote (hearsay)from Lifton about what Horne apparently noticed! So perhaps Horne's argument has not changed.

In any case, Horne does state clearly that some of the images in Zavada's test film do go full flush left.

I did understand your use of the word channeling. Although perhaps it was "faulty channeling."

Speaking is fine too!

As for your question about Dealey and Horne's efforts to get ARRB to do the proper tests .... I'll re-read that bit in his new book, and

try to respond in a timely manner. I do recall he met stiff resistance. Of course, if your set arrives by post, you might find the answer yourself!

Regards,

Peter Fokes

[Josiah Thompson]

Mr. Hagerman,

Thank you for passing on your memories of reading Six Seconds with your grandfather. It's been that long since the book came out? Wow!

I don't buy at all the tribal classification of researchers on the Kennedy assassination. You are either a "LN" or a "CT," an "alterationist" or a "non-alterationist." It seems to me we are all just people with our own long experiences of the world who are certainly capable of evaluating a claim if someone makes it. This is one reason why I like enormously the position of Craig Lamson. He couldn't care less whether Oswald did it alone or it was carried out by a battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division. He knows photography and that's what he'll talk about. Over time you end up trusting that kind of stubborn simplicity. At least I do.

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?”

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

[Dean Hagerman]

Thanks for the reply Tink I posted before I saw it, here was my next post

The question I have is why you changed you view on the double head shot

I will quote you on the bottom of page 111 of your book

"A coincidence certainly, but a coincidence whose reality is confirmed by the overwhelming weight of evidence"

I cant see how you can be so sure of the double head shot (of which I believe in and have believed in since reading your book back in 1988)

Why now do you say you were wrong because of the limo passangers lurching forward? Do you really think that the passangers including JFK could be thrown around like that unless the limo came to a complete and sudden stop?

Why do you buy into the theory that the already slow moving limo just slowed down a little more and threw everyone forward (including JFKs head ONLY not the rest of his body)

Your theory has long played into my own thoughts on the assassination and I was very put back when you changed your views on it

Dean

Edited December 30, 2009 by Dean Hagerman