Fetzer & Lifton channel Doug Horne: Truly or Falsely?

[Craig Lamson]

All,

Having decimated Lamson on the Doug Horne thread,

Snip to remove the contuiniong dreck by the village idiot...

It seems the village idiot is also a legend in his own mind.....

[Craig Lamson]

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

"Optically enhanced"? WTF???? You are mow telling us they manipulated the film via optical means PRIOR to digitzing it on a filmscanner? Well that pretty much cooks the goose for any semblence of testablity of their work.

BTW, "experts" on film restoration? Are they as reliable as this guy at rendering "expert" opinion?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15165

[Evan Marshall]

there sadly seems to be little correlation between educational levels and polite and respectful discourse.

Evan Marshall

Sgt, Detroit Homicide, retd

All,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James H. Fetzer

Dec 8 2009, 10:36 PM

Post #60

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 310

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________

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

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

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

By Douglas P. Horne

Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassinations Records Review Board

Table of Contents

Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery p. 1185

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________

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

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

Jim

FETZER AND LIFTON CHANNEL DOUG HORNE: TRULY OR FALSELY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the second printing, Lifton explained it this way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to make two things clear.

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

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

Josiah Thompson

Edited December 29, 2009 by Evan Marshall

[Jack White]

Maybe I am wrong, Jim, but I think you misspoke when you said

the occupants were thrown forward by the limo ACCELERATING.

I think you meant just the opposite (per Newton)...they were

thrown FORWARD when the limo suddenly BRAKED TO A STOP.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

They were of course actually thrown forward when the limo came to

an abrupt stop, as Rich has confirmed. But they kept frames showing

them THROWN FORWARD when the limo in the refashioned film SHOWS

THE LIMO ACCELERATING, which is why it counts as yet another proof

of film fakery. The would have been THROWN BACKWARD if what the

film shows to be happening had actually been happening. Thanks for

the comment. Perhaps I needed to explain that point in greater detail.

Maybe I am wrong, Jim, but I think you misspoke when you said

the occupants were thrown forward by the limo ACCELERATING.

I think you meant just the opposite (per Newton)...they were

thrown FORWARD when the limo suddenly BRAKED TO A STOP.

Jack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

They were of course actually thrown forward when the limo came to

an abrupt stop,

Agreed that they were thrown forward when the limo slowed abruptly.

But they kept frames showing them THROWN FORWARD when the limo in the refashioned film SHOWS

THE LIMO ACCELERATING,

We would expect some forward acceleration of the car to occur before the occupants reverse direction. The car slows suddenly, the occupants begin moving forward relative to the car; then the car accellerates while occupants are still moving forward, then eventually the occupants reverse direction in response to the car's acelleration.

I don't see anything about that sequence that suggests the film is altered.

[Josiah Thompson]

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 29, 2009 by Josiah Thompson

[Peter Fokes]

I want to make two things clear.

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

Josiah Thompson

Horne writes:

<quote on>

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

<quote off>

INSIDE THE ARRB, p. 1282

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

Why write two posts when you could write one?

Lets leave the topic of channeling to psychics.

Regards,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

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

[Peter Fokes]

.... it pretty much destroys Horne's argument ... about the supposed discrepancy. It would be unreasonable to expect two different camera to function exactly the same even if they are the same make and model especially 3 decades apart. But that is moot since as Tink demonstrated the frames did go "full flush left".

But you are assuming Horne makes an argument that he doesn't make. See my earlier quote from his new book.

Horne writes "...whereas the degree of intersprocket penetration on the test film shot by Zavada ... IN SOME CASES ... DID [go full flush left], [but] it only occurred intermittently, and did not occur in every single frame as it does in the extant film in the Archives."

Horne is not arguing that the frames in Zavada's test film did not go full flush left. But he is stating that occurred "intermittently".

Ignore his argument if you want. This thread is not really about Horne anyway. You are apparently discussing interpretations offered by other people (and the bizarre idea of channeling).

Cheerio

Peter Fokes

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Did you read the rest of the post? Have you read Appendix E of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX? I think it would help you get up-to-speed (which is unintentionally humorous in this context) on these issues, which appear to be considerably beyond you. Just for my own edification, is it your view that the film is authentic? or do you believe it is a fabrication, but question the specific proof I have cited?

If you understand that the vehicle was brought to a halt--see, for example, Vincent Palamara's "59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street", in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, as well as Appendix E in HOAX--then you will appreciate that they were thrown forward when Greer brought the vehicle to an abrupt halt! After a brief interval to insure JFK was dead, he accelerated out of the plaza--and later lied about it.

The limo stop was such a stunning indication of Secret Service complicity in the assassination that it had to be removed. That also involved taking out the Cheney-motoring-forward sequence and the Mary Moorman/Jean Hill-stepping-into-the-street sequence. He did not simply slow but stopped and, probably fearing bystanders would remember, their forward throw was retained even though it didn't fit.

They were of course actually thrown forward when the limo came to

an abrupt stop,

Agreed that they were thrown forward when the limo slowed abruptly.

But they kept frames showing them THROWN FORWARD when the limo in the refashioned film SHOWS

THE LIMO ACCELERATING,

We would expect some forward acceleration of the car to occur before the occupants reverse direction. The car slows suddenly, the occupants begin moving forward relative to the car; then the car accellerates while occupants are still moving forward, then eventually the occupants reverse direction in response to the car's acelleration.

I don't see anything about that sequence that suggests the film is altered.

[John Costella]

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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 29, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

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 the recollections of 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 Pat Speer

[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