Fetzer & Lifton channel Doug Horne: Truly or Falsely?

[David Lifton]

Tink,

In answer to your question: this is all once-removed (and even twice removed) hearsay to me. If some researcher shot such footage, I'd like to examine the product--whether on a DVD Rom, or if there is a Web-based address where it can be viewed, frame by frame. Thanks.

As to the intersprocket penetration, and whether the current state of the evidence (as we know it) can be used to render a final verdict one way or the other, I have stated my beliefs, based on what my eyes see. I do not believe these differences --which are clearly measurable and easily visible--can be explained away as "small differences" that can be explained away in the manner you suggest: "small differences in lens manufacture or mechanical functioning can account for the small differences between Zapruder camera image penetration and image penetration in like cameras."

"small differences"? This is easily visible, and easily measurable.

Stepping back from these details: this reminds me of Doug Horne's discovery of the situation that prevailed with regard to the Defense Department being requested by HSCA to please produce the camera used at the Bethesda autopsy. The camera was found, and when tested by the HSCA's photo panel, it was determined that that camera could not have taken the pictures in evidence. Rather than confront the fact that he had come upon powerful evidence of the inauthenticity of autopsy photographs (or at least some of them), Blakey's response to this was that DOD must have found "the wrong camera" (my quotes).

I see a similar behavioral pattern here. A difference is spotted, and pointed out: the response is "normal variations" in camera manufacture, invented language ("edge fog") etc. Where precision is called for, fuzzy language is being supplied.

In my opinion, we have a very serious problem here regarding the image extending further than it ought to. What I see here --in this evolving debate--is language being invoked to "explain it." I do not believe that these explanations are valid. But to carry this matter further, a test could (and perhaps should) be conducted.

Can a Zapruder type camera, operating at full zoom, and in normal sunlight conditions, place image beyond the left edge? Based on the Zavada-supplied red truck frames that you posted, I believe the answer to be "no." It appears (to me) to be a mechanical impossibility.

Yet such "beyond the left edge" imagery repeatedly shows up in the Zapruder frames.

And one other point: I notice that in the Rollie test shots (and certainly at "full zoom," as I recall) there is a very visible light flare at the lower right hand edge of the sprocket hole. But on the Zapruder frames in evidence (and again I refer to the Costella combined edit), no such phenomenon appears. Again, I suspect this may be still another indicia of INauthenticity--i.e., that the Z film in evidence was not made in Zapruder's camera.

DSL

PS: Re your other question: I do not know the history of Bowers' accounts, or when he first mentioned seeing one (or two) men behind the knoll. If someone creates such a chronology, and if it demonstrates "evolution" in Bowers' story, I'd appreciate receiving a copy. Thanks.

DSL

David,

I'm going to let Craig and Duncan deal with the point that you make. My knowledge of film and filmmaking is quite limited so anything I might say is probably not worth much, probatively speaking.

From the perspective of ten or fifteen years we can all agree it might have been better if Rollie Zavada had been able to get hold of Zapruder's camera and shoot a few rolls through it. If so, we wouldn't have all these questions we now have. But that didn't happen. So we're stuck with what we've got... several cameras of like make and model that Rollie experimented with and the report that someone else shot some film through a similar camera in Dealey Plaza and got continuous full flush left intersprocket image penetration. Remember I asked if you knew anything about that. Do you?

Rollie has a section in Study 4 called "Recognized Image Anomalies in the Zapruder Original Film." A subsection of this section he titles, "Image Penetration Between the Perforations." He points out that "the characteristics and depth of the image penetration... is directly related to the effective image area from the exit window of the Varamat lens, the focal length of lens and in some cases the aperture setting." I would guess everyone would agree that Rollie is correct about this. The next question is whether small differences in lens manufacture or mechanical functioning can account for the small differences between Zapruder camera image penetration and image penetration in like cameras.

Josiah Thompson

Tink,

For many years, I took an assortment of science courses in which the importance of "what happens at the boundary" was emphasized. Although I am not claiming the analogy to be exact, the "intersprocket area" of the Zapruder film is of critical importance because it may contain optical evidence that the Zapruder film in evidence is not a camera original.

There is really no room--or at least, very little room (in my opinion)--for there to be any significant difference between what the frames of the Zapruder film show, and what a test film made through Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera show (or a similar "store bought" camera, same make and model, etc.) if we are to believe that the Zapruder film in evidence is really "camera original."

I just took a look through Costella's "combined edit" and call your attention to frames 235-244. In frame after frame, there is not only "full penetration" of the intersprocket area, but the image even extends FURTHER than the left margin. (Just focus on the image of SS Agent Clint Hill, who is often either partially, or wholly, to the left of the left margin). That, in my opinion, is a mechanical impossibility if the Z film that contains these frames was actually shot in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera.

Now, let's take a look at "Rollie's red truck"--the frames which you and Rollie Zavada seem to believe show "full penetration."

Just compare them to the Zapruder frames shown in the Costella Combined Edit.

Clearly, they are different. No part of the image in the "Rollie's red truck" frame extends past the left margin.

I have made a JPEG of each of these frames, and have placed one above the other for easy viewing. I will try to "upload" that exhibit into this post. Hopefully it will work.

What happens "at the boundary" really IS important in sciene, and that lesson can be applied in this case. These films SHOULD look the same. There are marked differences. If I am correct about this, then these frames which show "beyond full penetration" (and I don't care if it is 3% or 5%) is enough to prove that the Zapruder film in evidence was not made in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera.

Your comments?

[Josiah Thompson]

"Certainly, I have never before seen what I am now calling the "Rollie Red Truck" sequence at this level of clarity—and so I must direct this question to Thompson: does this exhibit which you included in your original post on this matter (and which has precipitated this debate) come from Zavada himself? Did he go back to his original materials—the actual film he took in Dealey Plaza, and provide you with these pictures? Or is it the case that frames of this clarity are in the actual Zavada report?"

As always, David, I am delighted to oblige. The photos of the red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza showing full flush left penetration are part of Figure 3-12 and are found on page 27 of Roland Zavada's Study 3. I am flabbergasted that you are not aware of it, given your interest in "full flush left penetration" over the years.

Now, let me ask again a question I asked you earlier. First, I want to put the question in context.

Back in 2003, you wrote in TGZFH: "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." I take it that the photos from Rollie's study show that what you said Doug Horne noticed is not correct... Rollie's studies did produce instances of images "full flush left." From other postings, I take it that it is both your and Doug Horne's position at present that the Zapruder film shows most of the time or all of the time this full flush left interpenetration while Rollie's studies show this only episodically.

Now I've been told that a researcher sent to Doug Horne film shot in Dealey Plaza with a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder's. I've been told that this film shows continuous (not just episodic) "full flush left image penetration."

Since you are a friend of Doug Horne (my understanding is that he sees you as a kind of mentor), can you tell me if this is correct?

If it is correct, then the movement of your position has to be clear. First, you take the position that other similar cameras to Zapruder's camera cannot produce a single instance ... "not a single one"... of full frame left penetration. When it is shown, that Zavada produced precisely what you said he couldn't produce, your position changes: you now claim that, unlike the Zapruder camera, other cameras of like make and model cannot produce continuous full frame left penetration.

If it's true that someone achieved continuous full frame penetration, what is going to be the next position on this? Is it going to be that the penetration doesn't go quite far enough or what?

I have to say that your shifting position is beginning to look like an extended quibble. But let's get to the bottom of this question about continuous full frame penetration. Did someone really achieve that with a camera of the same make and model?

Josiah Thompson

To Craig Lamson:

You are introducing terminology I never heard of—"edge fog."

Before entering this arena and proposing to discuss this matter, please define your terms, or at least stick to known vocabulary.

What the heck is "edge fog"—other than your own linguistic invention to account for a serious optical discrepancy, one that demands explanation, and which your post does not in fact explain.

Let me address your post in detail:

You write: "David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rollie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z?"

DSL Response: I can tell (and anyone can tell) by just looking at it. Very clearly and very obviously, it does not extend beyond the very well defined left edge.

By way of background: Josiah Thompson has done me –and every other person who is studying this matter closely (and certainly anyone who believes in Z film alteration) a very big favor. He has supplied the "rollie red truck" frames at a level of clarity I have never before seen.

Certainly, I have never before seen what I am now calling the "Rollie Red Truck" sequence at this level of clarity—and so I must direct this question to Thompson: does this exhibit which you included in your original post on this matter (and which has precipitated this debate) come from Zavada himself? Did he go back to his original materials—the actual film he took in Dealey Plaza, and provide you with these pictures? Or is it the case that frames of this clarity are in the actual Zavada report?

Whichever is the case, these frames, it seems to me (and unless one is going to invent one's own unique terminology, as Lamson has done here) prove important evidence that the left margin of the frame of a Zapruder-type camera does NOT permit image to appear beyond the left-most edge of the frame—in start contrast to what we see in the Zapruder film frames that supposedly come from a "camera original" film.

As for you, Craig Lamson: Inventing your own terminology, calling the argument "silly," and invoking "normal sample variation" does not answer, much less address the fundamental question. To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?

DSL

1:55 PM; PST

Los Angeles, CA.

[Josiah Thompson]

"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?"

Where do I stand today? I stand convinced that you are a ninny!!

What on earth does the McClelland quote and diagram have to do with "full frame left interpenetration?" It was part of the discussion in a chapter that showed profound differences between what the Parkland personnel observed and the published autopsy report. Back in those days before the autopsy photos were known and before any investigation of Bethesda by HSCA, this was a real advance in our knowledge of the case. There is no "inconsistency" and no "lapse."

Once again, you are simply blowing smoke trying to get me or others involved in an irrelevant debate. Just once why don't you try and limit yourself to what others want to talk about.

Josiah Thompson

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

[Craig Lamson]

I see a similar behavioral pattern here. A difference is spotted, and pointed out: the response is "normal variations" in camera manufacture, invented language ("edge fog") etc. Where precision is called for, fuzzy language is being supplied.

Clearly David Lifton is WAY out of his depth. This is becoming a quite common theme for the Fetzer/Lifton/Horne team.

Edge fog is a standard photographic term that has been around for years. It describes the edge of a spool of film being light struck causing the film to be exposed in that area. Again this is photograpy 101 stuff.

Why is anyone listening to Lifton - Horne etc about the photographic process when they prove with their own statements they don't have the first clue what they are talking about?

http://www.creativeglossary.com/film/edge-fog.html

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/63996-e...nto-camera.html

http://markcellasfilmtheory.blogspot.com/2...1/edge-fog.html

http://homepage.newschool.edu/~schlemoj/fi...glossary.html#e

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/edge+fog

Want more?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So let's ask this question: If it can be proven that the extant Zapruder film matches in content the sound impulses appearing on the Dallas police dictabelt, doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film?

I hope not, because the best scientific minds to date agree that the acoustic impulses are NOT GUNSHOTS.

The Z-film does not need corroboration from the acoustics and besides, the Z-film does not claim 3 shots (OR ANY SHOTS) from the TSBD. So if it turns out that 399 and the limo fragments were planted, and there were No shots from the rear, the acoustics are impeached but not the Zfilm.

Let's also ask a second question: No discrepancy between the extant Zapruder film and any other film or photo taken in Dealey Plaza has ever been shown. Doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film?

Now here you are on solid ground, as far as I know.

[Craig Lamson]

To Craig Lamson:

You are introducing terminology I never heard of—"edge fog."

efore entering this arena and proposing to discuss this matter, please define your terms, or at least stick to known vocabulary.

What the heck is "edge fog"—other than your own linguistic invention to account for a serious optical discrepancy, one that demands explanation, and which your post does not in fact explain.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before getting involved into a subject area such as the basic photographic process. I made a post just before this one that will school you on the standard photogrpahic term edge fog.

Let me address your post in detail:

You write: "David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rollie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z?"

DSL Response: I can tell (and anyone can tell) by just looking at it. Very clearly and very obviously, it does not extend beyond the very well defined left edge.

No you can't. You can't see anything beyond the the right most edge of the edge fog. You have ZERO clue what image area might have been destroyed by the errant light exposure.

By way of background: Josiah Thompson has done me –and every other person who is studying this matter closely (and certainly anyone who believes in Z film alteration) a very big favor. He has supplied the "rollie red truck" frames at a level of clarity I have never before seen.

Certainly, I have never before seen what I am now calling the "Rollie Red Truck" sequence at this level of clarity—and so I must direct this question to Thompson: does this exhibit which you included in your original post on this matter (and which has precipitated this debate) come from Zavada himself? Did he go back to his original materials—the actual film he took in Dealey Plaza, and provide you with these pictures? Or is it the case that frames of this clarity are in the actual Zavada report?

Whichever is the case, these frames, it seems to me (and unless one is going to invent one's own unique terminology, as Lamson has done here) prove important evidence that the left margin of the frame of a Zapruder-type camera does NOT permit image to appear beyond the left-most edge of the frame—in start contrast to what we see in the Zapruder film frames that supposedly come from a "camera original" film.

Do you even have the basic understanding of how the circle of illumination of a lens works? If you can't get your hands on the Z camera ( why give it to people without a clue and a silly argument) get 10 other samples and test them, see what happens instead if sitting around writing about things it appears you have scant knowlege of.

As for you, Craig Lamson: Inventing your own terminology, calling the argument "silly," and invoking "normal sample variation" does not answer, much less address the fundamental question. To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?

The argument is silly and weak. Normal sample variation is rampant in the professional lenses today, when you would think it should have gone away with better manufacturing processes. The sad fact is that wiht the current crop of very high resloutoin digital cameras and 100% pixel peeping in Photoshop many photographers have had to resort to buying many copies of the same lens, testing them and only keeping the best one, simply because they vary so much from copy to copy. Even then it is not uncommon for that lens to be shipped back to the manufacturer for even further adjustment.

This happens with 3-4 thousand dollar lenses, and you want us to believe cameras made in the early 60's don't have normal sample variation? Please! All it would take is for one camera to limit the maximum zoom to 26.5mm and for the next camera to limit maximum zoom to 27.5mm to change the size of he circle of illumination. This is a mechanical devive built by humans in the early 60's. It is noit even a high end product. You think theyumachined this thing on a CNC machine?

You say this : "To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?

You clearly have not addressed either of these two points in detail, you have simply waved your hands and deemed them true.

On the first, you can't know the the "camera mechanism" has limited the penetration to a "clearly defined edge" because you can't even see the edge, because of the edge fog.

The second is just a wild claim based on nothing, simply because you don't have a clue what you are looking at or how the system works.

DSL

1:55 PM; PST

Los Angeles, CA.

[Dean Hagerman]

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a

Tink

This is very important, maybe not to you but it is to me

I have asked you in this thread about it and I understand that you are busy dealing with Full Flush Left but at the same time the double hit theory that YOU came up with has something to do with Z-film alteration

Again I have believed in your theory since I read it, it made perfect sense and the way you presented it in your book was outstanding

I have read the story about why you no longer support your double hit theory, but I cant see how you were so sure in SSID but then go back on it from one researcher telling you it was the from the limo slowing down and the passangers being thrown forward

Why didnt the rest of JFKs body get thrown forward with the rest of the limo? Just his head moved forward

I dont want to go into my thoughts on Z-film alteration right now because I dont want you to dismiss me as this is important to ME!

Rich Dellarosa has seen the double hit unlike myself and you have Tink

This fits in perfectly with the Z-film being altered, I hope that you taking back your double hit theory didnt have anything to do with you not wanting to be involved or labeled as an alterationist

Tink I believe that you were correct back in 1967 and you are still correct today

Can you at least give me some more info on why you dont believe in your theory anymore?

Again I would love to discuss this with you, if you want i can start a new thread

Thanks Tink

Dean

Edited December 31, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Dean Hagerman]

Ok Dean, so that there is no room for error, I have made a new gif where the line is thicker and placed inside of the sprocket holes extended to reach the edges, which is what I should have did with my earlier examples. As you can see, the results are the same, with the black area still showing. All you need to do to check the accuracy is to place your mouse pointer on the edges of the sprocket holes and watch the green line overlay give an exact match. This proves that David Lifton is wrong to say that the Zavada shows a clearly defined left edge

Ok Duncan much better, thank you

The amount of black is so small, and not only that its not red like the color of the truck, how do you explain that?

Now lets talk about the image that goes ALL the way to the left (Full Flush Left) why can we see Clint Hill in the Z-film frames far beyond the sprocket holes but that is not the case with Zavadas frames?

How can you say Lifton is wrong?

I await your opinion Duncan

Dean

[Dean Hagerman]

Duncan you used the top frame to prove your point that Lifton was wrong (in my opinion you did not prove Lifton wrong)

Now im going to use the bottom frame to prove that Lifton was right

[Josiah Thompson]

"I hope not, because the best scientific minds to date agree that the acoustic impulses are NOT GUNSHOTS."

I beg to differ with you, Ray. I was present in Washington, D.C. when one of what you call "the best scientific minds to date" gave a lecture. He was then irretrievably eviscerated by an even better lecture from another scientist, Dr. Donald Thomas. Ive read both sides on this issue and, in my opinion, there is no doubt on which side scientific evidence resides.

Josiah Thompson

So let's ask this question: If it can be proven that the extant Zapruder film matches in content the sound impulses appearing on the Dallas police dictabelt, doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film?

I hope not, because the best scientific minds to date agree that the acoustic impulses are NOT GUNSHOTS.

The Z-film does not need corroboration from the acoustics and besides, the Z-film does not claim 3 shots (OR ANY SHOTS) from the TSBD. So if it turns out that 399 and the limo fragments were planted, and there were No shots from the rear, the acoustics are impeached but not the Zfilm.

Let's also ask a second question: No discrepancy between the extant Zapruder film and any other film or photo taken in Dealey Plaza has ever been shown. Doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film?

Now here you are on solid ground, as far as I know.

[Craig Lamson]

Duncan you used the top frame to prove your point that Lifton was wrong (in my opinion you did not prove Lifton wrong)

Now im going to use the bottom frame to prove that Lifton was right

Edge Fog Dean...Edge Fog

[Josiah Thompson]

If you want to start a separate thread on the "double head shot" and others choose to contribute, I will be happy to give you chapter and verse on why I was wrong in 1967. I would like to keep this thead focused on what it is supposed to be about. I didn't change my mind, obviously, because of what one researcher told me or didn't tell me.

Josiah Thompson

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a

Tink

This is very important, maybe not to you but it is to me

I have asked you in this thread about it and I understand that you are busy dealing with Full Flush Left but at the same time the double hit theory that YOU came up with has something to do with Z-film alteration

Again I have believed in your theory since I read it, it made perfect sense and the way you presented it in your book was outstanding

I have read the story about why you no longer support your double hit theory, but I cant see how you were so sure in SSID but then go back on it from one researcher telling you it was the from the limo slowing down and the passangers being thrown forward

Why didnt the rest of JFKs body get thrown forward with the rest of the limo? Just his head moved forward

I dont want to go into my thoughts on Z-film alteration right now because I dont want you to dismiss me as this is important to ME!

Rich Dellarosa has seen the double hit unlike myself and you have Tink

This fits in perfectly with the Z-film being altered, I hope that you taking back your double hit theory didnt have anything to do with you not wanting to be involved or labeled as an alterationist

Tink I believe that you were correct back in 1967 and you are still correct today

Can you at least give me some more info on why you dont believe in your theory anymore?

Again I would love to discuss this with you, if you want i can start a new thread

Thanks Tink

Dean

[David Lifton]

Thanks for your support, and the succinct manner in which you have summed up the key reasons for believing in Zapruder film alteration:

"What you see on the Zapruder film strongly contradicts all those witnesses who described the limousine stopping (and even swerving to the left), as well as the doctors and nurses who all stated there was a massive blowout to the back of the head. None described seeing the damage to the right front, which is so prominent in the Zapruder film."

Yes, isn't it amazing: damage seen at Parkland, is not on the film; and damage so prominent on the film is not observed (or reported) at Parkland Hospital four minutes later.

Apparently, those who insist on believing in the authenticity of the Zapruder film invent "innocent explanations" for each of the above (which Rollie Zavada disparages by referring to it as "image content" evidence) and when one points to optical evidence that suggests the film was not made in Zapruder's camera, they engage in "innocent explanations" or techno babble in that area too.

Again, thanks for your support.

DSL

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Frankly, I cannot understand your analogy with Lundberg (not "Lumberg"), who was covering up in relation to the medical evidence, while the research group that I organized in 1992--including David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., Bob Livingston, M.D., Charles Crenshaw, M.D., Jack White, and John P. Costella, Ph.D.--has been taking it and Zapruder film fakery apart, with considerable success (though I infer that you, like Josiah Thompson, don't actually read the research of those with whom you happen to disagree). So that is a bizarre remark. Moreover, the kinds of technical and scientific competence they represent is indispensable in this case, because many of the issues involved in separating authentic from inauthentic evidence involve technical, scientific questions. Now David has a Ph.D. in physics, an M.D., and is board certified in radiation oncology, which is the treatment of cancer using X-ray therapy, and is an expert on the interpretation of X-rays. He has visited the National Archives nine times and has examined the autopsy materials that are archived there. His studies have been published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I only mention this because he is obviously eminently qualified for research of this kind. When I described you as a "rank amateur", therefore, I could be mistaken, if you have suitable qualifications for research of this kind. So please tell me. I am very curious how you got into the study of the X-rays and the basis for your differences with David W. Mantik. Thanks.

I'm not the one with low standards, Jim. You seemingly will accept any conspiracy argument provided it comes from your clique, and then never waver no matter how much evidence is presented proving them wrong. In this regard, you are pretty much like former JAMA editor George Lumberg, who claimed there was nothing fishy about the medical evidence because Dr. Humes and Dr. Petty told him so, without even acknowledging that Humes and Petty were in wide disagreement on the nature of the President's wounds.

As far as JFK's hair, it was far from neat and tidy. It was long on top and short along the side, and was blown all over by the winds of Texas. The head in the autopsy photos has this same exact haircut. My, what a coinkydink!

As far as the white patch, you seem to think the wing was above Kennedy's ear, and that the white patch is behind his ear. Take a look again at the Where is the Wing? slide. The area above Kennedy's ear is towards the back of his head... precisely where one can find the white patch.

As far as Files, I'm not a disciple, and your trying to paint me with the "Files" brush is a bit ridiculous, considering some of the brushes one could paint you with.

Well, given your standards, I suppose we should welcome the James Files' "confession", since why would anyone confess to participating in the assassination if he hadn't done so--and it supports the case for conspiracy? But Files's "confession" is fake and no one ought to be taken in. Similarly, the Groden color-photos are fake, as I seem to recall he and I discussed in Dubuque, IA, when we were making an unusual joint appearance together. How can you think they are genuine when JFK's hair is long and stringy, when it was actually short and tidy? Do you still think these photos are genuine, even after I have explained how you can tell they are fake?

Now my best guess is that they were prepared as an exercise to practice faking photographs of the autopsy. Some fakes are far more real than these. I recall having been taken in--briefly, I am happy to say--by photographs from the autopsy scene in Oliver Stone's "JFK", which were even more real than this and displayed the massive missing skull after having been subjected to surgery, but which you may not understand if you have not been reading Doug's books, in this case, Vol. IV, which also includes his work on Zapruder film fakery. After what he has reported about Hollywood film restoration experts observing a 6k version of the film and gasping with astonishment at the crudity of the fakery, do you still think that the film is genuine--which would astonish me?

Please know that I derive no pleasure from explaining these things to you. Apparently, even the HSCA's photographs and the Ida Dox diagrams, which show the skull flap quite clearly (just above and slightly forward of the right ear) have failed to impress you that it was no where near the back of the skull where the massive blow out occurred--and therefore cannot be the feature that created the extremely white areas at the back of the skull. PLUS, as Jack has observed, you do not appear to have taken into account David Mantik's meticulous optical densitometry studies of the X-rays in the National Archives. I am therefore compelled to ask if you have studied his chapters in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). Because your attempts to defend your position suggest that you have never even read them.

I am also stunned by the rhetorial question you raise, namely: "Did they create one false set of evidence in 63, and then turn around and lie about what this bogus evidence showed?" Because that, of course, is exactly what happened, as David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE (1980), explained so long ago! The Bethesda autopsy had the entry wound situated low down on the back of the head, while the HSCA reinvestigation moved it four inches higher to the crown of the head. The massive defect that was central to the Bethesda autopsy report was replaced by a smooth back of the head. Egad! If you are really this ignorant about the medical evidence in this case, you really have no business at all writing about it. You are a rank amateur.

This is embarrassing. Don't you know that those Groden color-photos are fakes? I am stupefied that you would use them as a point of reference. Go to my blog, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, and go to "Dealey Plaza Revisited". Scroll down around 37 slides and you will find an autopsy photograph and a drawing from the HSCA. Compare the hair with the hair on Groden's. They cannot possibly both be of the same patient at the same time--unless he had been given a shampoo and a hair cut, as Humes was asked and denied in his deposition. See MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), Appendix G, page 447, for example.

Surely you have viewed the Zapruder film and other photographs and films from the motorcade and Dealey Plaza. Haven't you noticed that JFK's hair is short and neatly trimmed, very much like it is seen in the photographs from the HSCA and not remotely long and stringy as shown in the Groden color-photos. I didn't think anyone in the research community had been taken in by those obvious fakes, which may have been intended to support the phony hypothesis of a shot having traversed his head and exited at the top. I would like to know that you are pulling my leg, because you appear to have been duped.

Then scroll down further and you will see a simple explanation of David Mantik's work and a comparison of his discovery of the "Area P" (for "patch") with the massive blow-out at the back of the head visible in Zapruder Frame 374. You will see how much they resemble one another. The photo from the HSCA shows the bone-flap above the right ear clearly, which even Tom Robinson described, and it is nowhere near the back of the head where "Area P" is located. Haven't you spent time on sorting out these things? I am sorry to say, Pat Speer, but you have now further demonstrated your own incompetence.

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.

It is not my ignorance that is the source of our problems, it is your arrogance. For years now you have been arguing from authority, citing Mantik's work on the X-rays as definitive, while I have been trying to get one honest answer out of you regarding what is readily apparent to others.

Even so, I'll try again.

Mantik claims there is a white patch towards the back of Kennedy's lateral x-ray. He is right. I believe he is wrong, however, to assert this patch has no innocent explanation. While trying to create a slide demonstrating this white patch I realized that the location of this white patch corresponds precisely to the location of the "wing" of bone seen on the establishing shots taken at the autopsy. This led me to believe Mantik was wrong. This white patch is not an artifact, moreover, but what one would expect of a section of skull three layers of bone deep. The "whiteness" of this area, furthermore, would lead to the one layer of bone area anterior to these three layers of bone to appear darker than normal. This darkness, in turn, led Mantik to believe there was no brain in this area.

The overlay of bone and "white patch" is demonstrated here:

To be clear, I did not create the slide above to prove Mantik wrong or any such thing. I was trying to test the work of LNer Joe Durnavich, and, in doing so, found his depiction of the wing on the X-rays to be incorrect.

Now, in regards the supposed 6.5 mm fragment... In this case I was trying to create a slide in which I would demonstrate Mantik to be correct. I was trying to match up the lateral and AP-X-rays after taking into account the distortion and tilt of the skull in the A-P. And what I found astounded me. While drawing a line from the frag on the A-P to the frag location in the lateral--in order to prove there is no clear-cut frag on the back of the head in this location--I noticed that the line passed through an unusual shape behind JFK's right eye. The thought quickly occurred that "Hmm...could it be?" When I compared the x-ray to the pre-mortem X-ray it was clear it was. I then went back to the reports on the autopsy, the Rydberg drawings, Humes' testimony, and even Humes and Boswell's ARRB testimony. All confirmed that the large frag on the A-P X-ray is the large frag removed from behind the right eye at the autopsy.

This is demonstrated here:

And here:

Now if you want to create an argument that it is just a coincidence that the white patch corresponds exactly with the "wing" of bone, and that the fragment supposedly added onto the back of the head corresponds precisely to the location of the fragment removed from behind the right eye at autopsy, then FIRE AWAY. But calling me ignorant, when I have read your books, and you refuse to read mine, is the height of arrogance, and a clear demonstration, IMO, that your positions are not thought out, but gulped down with vigor, like wine during communion.

If you open your eyes, Jim, and actually look at the "where is the wing" slide above, you will see that the white patch area matches precisely the area covered by the wing of bone in the right lateral Groden photo and stare of death photo, which are almost certainly not fakes.

As far as the hair, OF COURSE, the hair was washed before the back of the head photo was taken. When one reads about autopsy photography, one finds that establishing shots are taken before close-ups of the individual wounds. The establishing shots in this case are the top of the head photos, left lateral photo, right lateral photo, and stare of death photo. After these were taken the body was cleaned up a little, rolled over and inspected. (I mean, really, do you think doctors sifted through blood and brain-soaked hair when inspecting the scalp?) This is standard. During this clean-up and inspection, two wounds were located: a small back wound and a small entrance near the EOP, which is demonstrated in the slide below:

Now, since you seem to think the BOH photo is a fake put out by the government, can you explain why it shows a bullet entrance in the scalp that precisely corresponds with the bullet entrance in the skull noted at autopsy, that has since been "disappeared" by the government?

I mean, let's get real here, why would the government "fake" photos and films that, when studied, demonstrate their re-assessments of the medical evidence to have been a sham, and suggest Kennedy was shot twice in the head?

Did they create one false set of evidence in 63, and then turn around and lie about what this bogus evidence showed?

Doesn't it make a lot more sense to think the medical evidence currently suppressed by the government, which suggests Kennedy was killed by not one but two shots to the head, is real?

Edited December 31, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Josiah,

Your obvious unwillingness to address crucial questions about your "micro-study" in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) is becoming an embarrassment to everyone who has ever believed in you. You like to pose as a "stand-up guy", but this must be the eighth time I have asked for clarification about your early book and the seventh time you have "ducked and run"! That is not the image you have been trying to project for all these years. I guess when it comes down to the bottom line and your fakery has been exposed, you are not going to confront it for the world to see--not even in a protective environment like this one, where you can count on frauds and flakes like Lamson and Colby to rush to your defense whenever you get into trouble. Well, I dare say, you are in deep water now, and every member of this forum can tell that you are not willing to explain yourself. That I can understand, because your conduct in retrospect has been reprehensible and it is apparent why you do not want to confront it. Cute remarks won't cut it, Tink! Your continued evasion of these questions is a disgrace. So where do you stand on these issues today?

I and others here have now asked you a half-dozen or more times to clarify your position today in relation to your position in 1967, when SIX SECONDS was published. I have taken another look and not only is the only sketch of frame 313--which appears on page 107--indecipherable in relation to the "blob", which is the single most striking feature of the film--but I have searched in vain for sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, which are the most important relative to portraying the wound. I have noticed one or two abstract sketches on page 87, which were used in relation to your analysis of the "doubt hit", but they are absent the kinds of details that one would expert of a "micro-study" of the Kennedy assassination. No only do you not focus on this sequence of frames--which one would have naively supposed held the key to the trajectory of the alleged "fatal shot"--but you do not even present them in sufficient detail that your readers could study them!

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a conspiracy to take him out. Yet, in the final paragraph of the text of your book, you observe, "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor when the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. it also shows that the question of Oswald's guilt must remain--nearly four years after the event--still unanswered." This final paragraph, after all, seem to nullify the rest of your book, virtually in its entirety. Have you abandoned the "doubt hit" analysis and even the conclusion that this was a conspiracy?

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 "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne has 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."" It was their professional judgment that the wound to the back of the head had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in. No matter how much you may have resisted the inference, the weight of the evidence has made it abundantly clear that the extant film is a fabrication, which should have been apparent to you already when you published SIX SECONDS in 1967!

Thus, more than forty years after the event, the specifics of your position about the assassination are still unanswered. As I have observed, it cannot have escaped your notice that the McClelland diagram, which appears on page 107 of your book, shows a blow out to the rear of the head, while the crucial frames of the film--313 through 316--show a blow out to the right-front. Surely, as the author of a "micro study" of the assassination based upon your study of the film, it had to capture your attention. After all, it provides prima facie proof that the film is a fabrication. Yet for all these intervening years, when the authenticity of the film has been in doubt, you have relentlessly attacked research that tends to show it. Well, the time has come for you to address the question and explain how it is possible that you did not relentlessly pursue this question. Because, in the absence of an adequate explanation, there are grounds to infer that your objective in writing this book was not to build a case for conspiracy or even illuminate the evidence but to obfuscate its significance, not only for the film but for the assassination itself.

Jim

"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?"

Where do I stand today? I stand convinced that you are a ninny!!

What on earth does the McClelland quote and diagram have to do with "full frame left interpenetration?" It was part of the discussion in a chapter that showed profound differences between what the Parkland personnel observed and the published autopsy report. Back in those days before the autopsy photos were known and before any investigation of Bethesda by HSCA, this was a real advance in our knowledge of the case. There is no "inconsistency" and no "lapse."

Once again, you are simply blowing smoke trying to get me or others involved in an irrelevant debate. Just once why don't you try and limit yourself to what others want to talk about.

Josiah Thompson

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

Edited December 31, 2009 by James H. Fetzer