Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 PI Thompson, Everyone knows that you replied to Dean Hagerman to make it look as though you were dealing with me. But Dean himself has asked you to answer the question that I have raised. I diagnosed Lamson's mental abnormalities rooted in the solipsistic position that nothing is real or true unless it can be found within the contents of Lamson's own mind on the Doug Horne thread. Now I am inquiring about the contents of your mind relative to an unresolved contradiction in your book. 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. 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 the diagram of the wound JFK 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 Mr. Hagerman,Thank you for passing on your memories of reading Six Seconds with your grandfather. It's been that long since the book came out? Wow! I don't buy at all the tribal classification of researchers on the Kennedy assassination. You are either a "LN" or a "CT," an "alterationist" or a "non-alterationist." It seems to me we are all just people with our own long experiences of the world who are certainly capable of evaluating a claim if someone makes it. This is one reason why I like enormously the position of Craig Lamson. He couldn't care less whether Oswald did it alone or it was carried out by a battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division. He knows photography and that's what he'll talk about. Over time you end up trusting that kind of stubborn simplicity. At least I do. Josiah Thompson FETZER AND LIFTON CHANNEL DOUG HORNE: TRULY OR FALSELY?We first heard of “Hawkeyeworks” at the 1998 Lancer Conference. Since that time, NPIC, Doug Horne’s interviews with Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon and associated details have become a staple of Fetzer’s series of books on the assassination. His Great Zapruder Film Hoax, published in 2003, featured a long article by David Lifton entitled, “Pig on a Leash.” Written in a kind of jaunty prose much more enjoyable to read than the usual assassination fare, this article laid out in detail Lifon’s long history with the film and his equally long attempt to show it was faked-up. Surprisingly, in a piece that runs on for 117 pages of small print, Lifton offers exactly one fact to show the Zapruder film has been altered. This fact, says Lifton, came to his attention through Doug Horne. Horne had frequent contact with Roland Zavada as Zavada carried out his work for the AARB. According to Lifton, Horne explained to him that Zavada had come upon one significant indication that the Zapruder film was faked-up and never admitted this in his final report. According to Lifton, this signal indication of Zapruder fakery was what he called “the full flush left problem.” Here is how Lifton explained it in the first printing of his article: "This point is crucial: in the case of the supposed camera original, there is not just “some image” in the sprocket hole area (the image doesn’t just “bleed over” a little bit); rather, the image goes all the way to the left! To the left margin of the film! That this is so can clearly be seen even on the frames of the Zapruder film published in Volume 18 of the 26 Volumes. But is that possible? Can the Zapruder lens do that? Can it put an image on the film that is full flush left? In connection with his ARRB work, Zavada purchased some half dozen cameras at garage sales, he took them apart, he put them back together. The man really worked hard on a wide variety of problems and issues. And then he went to Dallas and took test shots, putting his wife in Dealey Plaza, and exposed all sorts of scenes at a variety of settings. Then these test pictures – these test shots – went into an appendix in the final report, which was delivered within hours of the ARRB going out of existence. A report that was supposed to 'explain the anomalies.' What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance – not a single one – could Rollie Zavada get the images to go full flush left. It couldn’t be done, because the camera just isn’t designed that way. " (TGZFH, p. 397) In the second printing, Lifton explained it this way: "Turning to Figures 4-1 and 4-2 [of the Zavada Report], the Zapruder frames, the Zapruder frames Rollie had photographed at the National Archives, it was clear that these frames were out full flush left. All the way to the left. Then Doug compared those with the test shots Rollie made in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder’s perch with one of his Zapruder-type cameras. One strip showed [his] wife standing in the street, another showed a red truck passing through. Another test shot, his figure 4-26, showed his wife standing in front of their garage in Rochester. In each case, Rollie varied the telephoto setting and, as the zoom increased, the left margin moved somewhat to the left. But, contrary to what Rollie had told me, there was quite a problem. The test frames did not appear similar to those from the original Zapruder film. It was a simple matter of geometry: Rollie’s clearly did not go consistently full flush left." (TGZFH, p.97) To this charge of cover-up, Rollie Zavada responded in his usual calm, mild way. As Lifton points out, “Zavada replied with a statement, posted on the Internet. He claimed his test shots proved the case – that his test shots proved full penetration of the intersprocket area...(TGZFH, p. 402). Lifton and Fetzer must have felt that their proof in this area was wanting. In the second printing of TGZFH, they added photos purporting to show Zavada’s test shots. In the text under the test shots, appears this claim: “Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [Zavada] replicate the continuous ‘full flush left’ phenomenon seen on the previous two pages” (TGZFH, p. 400). So let’s see if what Fetzer and Lifton (channeling Horne) say is correct. Is it true or false that using other cameras of the same make and model Zavada was unable to produce “full flush left penetration?” I want to point out that I wasn’t swift enough to get all this straight. It was Rollie Zavada back in 2003 who called my attention to this. With respect to this later test shot he wrote on a Post-It: “Note full intersprocket image penetration.” With respect to the former test shot of the pickup truck in Dealey Plaza,"[/i] he wrote on a Post-It: “Note: Full inter-sprocket image penetration of truck scene taken in Dallas. Doug Horne missed this in my report!” I want to make two things clear. (1) Doug Horne had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer. When Horne’s book arrives, I look forward to seeing whether this earlier bogus claim remains in any way a part of his discussion of the Zapruder film. (2) What Fetzer and perhaps Lifton did here is simply outrageous. They took one of Rollie Zavada’s test shots. They published it in degraded form and used that form to claim it showed the opposite of what it does show! For all I know, this was done without either Horne’s or Lifton’s knowledge and permission. Similar cases occur in other Fetzer books. In Murder in Dealey Plaza, he circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine windshield and labeled it, “The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” In The 9/11 Conspiracy, he publishes a photo of World Trade Center 7 with a caption that states, “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” The only problem is that the photo was taken in 1997 and the “modest fire at street level” is an orange Calder statue installed on the mezzanine level of the building! Josiah Thompson Tink First of all my grandfathers favorite book on the assassination is "Six Seconds In Dallas" he read his copy of your book one time back when it came out, when he handed it down to me back in 1988 I read it, at that time my grandpa also had the paperback version with highlights and notes that he passed down to me as well (along with 150+ other assassination books) so I could keep the hardcover in mint condition and read the paperback as much as I wanted. So I want to thank you for writing a great book that not only my grandpa loves but I love as well, we spent 100s of hours going over the assassination and your book was a major topic for us including the two head shot theory (that you now claim was wrong, I still think you are right about that and would love to talk to you about why you changed your mind) I hold you book as one of the centerpieces of my collection (along wih my signed copy of "Forgive My Grief vol1" by Penn Jones and my signed copy of "Post Mortem" by Harold Weisberg who signed them for my grandpa) It would be an honor if you would one day sign my hardcover copy of SSID Now that thats out of the way, I am reading Doug Hornes vol 4 right now, and I must say that not only does Doug validate David Liftons theory in "Best Evidence" but also does the same for Fetzers "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" both of those books I agree with 100% and back them up I have believed in alteration since reading "Bloody Treason" back in 1997 and countinued to believe and study all three of Fetzers books ending with the amazing TGZFH I must say that your post has a bit of fear behind it, with the history of you and fetzer I must say that Dougs books are going to convince alot of researchers that the Z-film was altered Before you put me down like your crew member Craig remember this, I have nothing but respect for you and your work Tink, and like I said I still agree with most of SSID and use a major theory in your book as part of my overall view on the assassination However with regards to Fetzer and alteration I belive that you are wrong Again Tink thanks for putting out a great book and being one of the first researchers on the assassination, I hope we can talk in depth about the two head shot theory and why you dont back that up anymore as well as your thoughts on alteration Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 Professor Fetzer, You write: "I find it curious that you would accept John Costella's rejection of the "full flush left" argument to be persuasive when you have rejected his proofs that the film is a fabrication. I am starting to get the impression that you accept the views of those with whom you agree and reject the views of those with whom you disagree REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE. If you are going to accept the rejection of the "full flush left" argument BECAUSE IT IS JOHN'S OPINION, you ought to accept his conclusion that the film is a fabrication. But we are discovering that consistency, methodological or otherwise, is not your strong suit. I would have thought you would at least wait to hear David Lifton's response." What I said to John Costella was: "Your doubts about the 'full flush left' argument appear to have been vindicated." Why? Because in the intervening years not even Horne backs the theory offered in 2003. It's just incredibly silly to read what I say as meaning I back the rejection of this argument because John Costella doubts it. To go from what I said, to what you interpreted me to say is what philosophers used to call either a "howler" or a "non-sequitor." You used to pay attention to such things. You address me now as "PI Thompson." I take it that you do that to demean me and how I've made my living for the last thirty years. Is the idea that people won't pay any attention to what I say because you've pointed out I am a lowly PI and you are a retired professor? Is that the idea? Well, it just might boomerang. I hold not a scintilla of regret for trading in an academic career for the life of a private investigator. The job is difficult and taxing in ways the academic life was not. It also called on a complexity of moral thinking unknown in the academic world. It is an honorable, sometimes dangerous, and always interesting profession. If you could look beyond your silly-ass academic glasses, you might see that Craig Lamson's career as a professional photographer has a similar integrity. Or even, that persons whom you discard as unlettered or uncredentialed, have abilities that leave you and your pals in the ditch. Why don't you just once try to deal with the factual points brought up in a thread?! Josiah Thompson PI Thompson,I find it curious that you would accept John Costella's rejection of the "full flush left" argument to be persuasive when you have rejected his proofs that the film is a fabrication. I am starting to get the impression that you accept the views of those with whom you agree and reject the views of those with whom you disagree REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE. If you are going to accept the rejection of the "full flush left" argument BECAUSE IT IS JOHN'S OPINION, you ought to accept his conclusion that the film is a fabrication. But we are discovering that consistency, methodological or otherwise, is not your strong suit. I would have thought you would at least wait to hear David Lifton's response. On the other hand, you are the right guy to answer my question, which concerns your own work, not that of others, namely: The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? Why didn't you pursue this inconsistency with zeal? Now I hope you are not going to force me to ask you again and again. Why duck and hide? I thought you were a "stand up" guy wiling to answer every question? Why not this one? Tell us. James H. Fetzer Thanks John Costella,You are absolutely correct. David Lifton referred to the secret Kodak plant as "Eagle Eye Works" at the Lancer 1998 conference. Your 2003 doubts about the "full flush left" argument would appear to have been vindicated. Back then, David Lifton was claiming that no other camera of the same make and model could possibly produce "full flush left image penetration." Apparently, Doug Horne now admits that this is not true while holding that other cameras only "intermittently" achieve "full flush left image penetration." I am told that another researcher sent Doug Horne film taken in Dallas from a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder's that shows "consistent" not "intermittent" "full frame left image penetration." If so, the "full flush left" argument would seem to be a dead puppy. I look forward to reading what you have to say about Horne's latest claims. Josiah Thompson I just wanted to comment here that some of the questions asked here may be clarified by the videos of the 2003 Duluth Symposium, which Rich DellaRosa kindly uploaded to YouTube recently. There are links to them on one of my web pages:http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk Having watched most of them when Rich posted them (I had not seen them before), two points stuck out regarding this thread: 1. David Lifton appears to first use the real term "Hawkeyeworks" in Duluth 2003, saying that he previously referred to it as "Eagle Eye Works" so that he wouldn't get busted for revealing classified information. If it was the latter term that he used at Lancer 1998, then that solves that mystery. 2. During Lifton's presentation, I butted in with a lengthy disagreement about his "full flush left" argument. I remain unconvinced. Just thought I would mention this, as it is one rare case where we can "go to the videotape". John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Fokes Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Mr. Fokes,I was using "channeling" in what I hoped might be a humorous way to say "speaking for." I certainly did not mean "channeling" in the technical sense and I am sorry if I misled you. I think it is relevant to point out that Lifton and Fetzer were using a stronger version of the "full flesh left" argument back in 2003 when Lifton could write: "What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance -- not a single one -- could Rollie Zavada get the images to go full flush left. It couldn't be done because the camera just isn't designed that way." (TGZFH, P. 397). From what you say, Doug Horne is no longer contending this but admitting that other cameras can achieve "full flush left image penetration" from time to time. I have also heard that another researcher took a camera like Zapruder's to Dealey Plaza and ended up with film showing consistent "full flush left image penetration." I don't know the researcher's name but I was told he sent the film to Doug Horne. Do you know anything about this? Once again, can I substitute "speaking for" for "channeling?" Josiah Thompson Hi, Assuming Lifton was correct in stating what Horne "noticed" (and it is hearsay coming from Lifton), then Horne has changed his argument in his new book. OF course, I have no idea of what else Horne did notice that Lifton did not mention at that time! So I would not go as far as you do when you state "Horne is no longer contending this" because I only have your quote (hearsay)from Lifton about what Horne apparently noticed! So perhaps Horne's argument has not changed. In any case, Horne does state clearly that some of the images in Zavada's test film do go full flush left. I did understand your use of the word channeling. Although perhaps it was "faulty channeling." Speaking is fine too! As for your question about Dealey and Horne's efforts to get ARRB to do the proper tests .... I'll re-read that bit in his new book, and try to respond in a timely manner. I do recall he met stiff resistance. Of course, if your set arrives by post, you might find the answer yourself! Regards, Peter Fokes Well. well .... I just noticed that Horne quotes an article Mr. Thompson wrote about this issue in his 2007 essay on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. Surprisingly, Thompson describes Lifton's claim about what Horne noticed as "HEARSAY"! Thompson wrote: "Relying on *hearsay* from ARRB staffer Doug Horne, Lifton claimed that Zavada ...." In fact, the hearsay is from LIFTON because it is LIFTON who is telling us what HORNE noticed. We are not hearing from Horne himself (which we now DO in his own book.) Horne goes on to discuss the RED TRUCK ISSUE. Oh, and that is what this thread is all about! So ..... From page 1285-86 of Horne's book, VOL IV: "Thompson then published an image of two red truck frames, including the one single truck frame (from figure 3-12 of Zavada's report) that was 'full flush left,' and the images of two frames of a test pattern shot under controlled laboratory conditions (in figure 4-28 on page 37 of Study 4) that show 'full flush left' penetration of the test pattern. Thompson either misses the point (which seems unlikely because he has a very sharp mind,) or is being intellectually dishonest here. Let me help: the issue here is that every single frame in the Zapruder film shows 'full flush left' penetration (or beyond). Only one of these red truck frames published by Zavada shows this. Futhermore, a test pattern shot under controlled laboratory conditions is not germaine to shooting in Dealey Plaza. Restated, 'one red truck frame' and 'two test frames of a test pattern shot in a film lab' do not make this issue disappear, when so many other test frames shot at full telephoto or outdoor conditions by Zavada (the lady on the sidewalk next to Elm St, the majority of the truck frames, and the images of his wife Carol in front of their garage door in New York) are so grossly INCONSISTENT with all of the Zapruder frames. Unless and until Abe Zapruder's actual camera is used to conduct a filming test in Dealey Plaza, from the same location near the pergola under lighting conditions that are the same as those in Dealey Plaza the day of the assassination, and the results (no matter what they show) are obtained and compared side-by-side with the extant film in the Archives, THIS ISSUE WILL NOT GO AWAY." Horne goes on to discuss why his demand for a scientific control test at Dealey Plaza was denied. But, heck, you can read as well as me. Buy the book. Regards, Peter Fokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Why don't you answer my question, oh ducker and weaver! Everyone can see that you are obfuscating about your obfuscation of the contradiction between the McClelland diagram and the crucial frames of the film. The former show the defect to the rear. The latter to the right-front. So which is it? How can you reconcile them? It appears your book was constructed to obfuscate a contradiction. And you are now evading the question. 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? Professor Fetzer,You write: "I find it curious that you would accept John Costella's rejection of the "full flush left" argument to be persuasive when you have rejected his proofs that the film is a fabrication. I am starting to get the impression that you accept the views of those with whom you agree and reject the views of those with whom you disagree REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE. If you are going to accept the rejection of the "full flush left" argument BECAUSE IT IS JOHN'S OPINION, you ought to accept his conclusion that the film is a fabrication. But we are discovering that consistency, methodological or otherwise, is not your strong suit. I would have thought you would at least wait to hear David Lifton's response." What I said to John Costella was: "Your doubts about the 'full flush left' argument appear to have been vindicated." Why? Because in the intervening years not even Horne backs the theory offered in 2003. It's just incredibly silly to read what I say as meaning I back the rejection of this argument because John Costella doubts it. To go from what I said, to what you interpreted me to say is what philosophers used to call either a "howler" or a "non-sequitor." You used to pay attention to such things. You address me now as "PI Thompson." I take it that you do that to demean me and how I've made my living for the last thirty years. Is the idea that people won't pay any attention to what I say because you've pointed out I am a lowly PI and you are a retired professor? Is that the idea? Well, it just might boomerang. I hold not a scintilla of regret for trading in an academic career for the life of a private investigator. The job is difficult and taxing in ways the academic life was not. It also called on a complexity of moral thinking unknown in the academic world. It is an honorable, sometimes dangerous, and always interesting profession. If you could look beyond your silly-ass academic glasses, you might see that Craig Lamson's career as a professional photographer has a similar integrity. Or even, that persons whom you discard as unlettered or uncredentialed, have abilities that leave you and your pals in the ditch. Why don't you just once try to deal with the factual points brought up in a thread?! Josiah Thompson PI Thompson,I find it curious that you would accept John Costella's rejection of the "full flush left" argument to be persuasive when you have rejected his proofs that the film is a fabrication. I am starting to get the impression that you accept the views of those with whom you agree and reject the views of those with whom you disagree REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE. If you are going to accept the rejection of the "full flush left" argument BECAUSE IT IS JOHN'S OPINION, you ought to accept his conclusion that the film is a fabrication. But we are discovering that consistency, methodological or otherwise, is not your strong suit. I would have thought you would at least wait to hear David Lifton's response. On the other hand, you are the right guy to answer my question, which concerns your own work, not that of others, namely: The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? Why didn't you pursue this inconsistency with zeal? Now I hope you are not going to force me to ask you again and again. Why duck and hide? I thought you were a "stand up" guy wiling to answer every question? Why not this one? Tell us. James H. Fetzer Thanks John Costella,You are absolutely correct. David Lifton referred to the secret Kodak plant as "Eagle Eye Works" at the Lancer 1998 conference. Your 2003 doubts about the "full flush left" argument would appear to have been vindicated. Back then, David Lifton was claiming that no other camera of the same make and model could possibly produce "full flush left image penetration." Apparently, Doug Horne now admits that this is not true while holding that other cameras only "intermittently" achieve "full flush left image penetration." I am told that another researcher sent Doug Horne film taken in Dallas from a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder's that shows "consistent" not "intermittent" "full frame left image penetration." If so, the "full flush left" argument would seem to be a dead puppy. I look forward to reading what you have to say about Horne's latest claims. Josiah Thompson I just wanted to comment here that some of the questions asked here may be clarified by the videos of the 2003 Duluth Symposium, which Rich DellaRosa kindly uploaded to YouTube recently. There are links to them on one of my web pages:http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk Having watched most of them when Rich posted them (I had not seen them before), two points stuck out regarding this thread: 1. David Lifton appears to first use the real term "Hawkeyeworks" in Duluth 2003, saying that he previously referred to it as "Eagle Eye Works" so that he wouldn't get busted for revealing classified information. If it was the latter term that he used at Lancer 1998, then that solves that mystery. 2. During Lifton's presentation, I butted in with a lengthy disagreement about his "full flush left" argument. I remain unconvinced. Just thought I would mention this, as it is one rare case where we can "go to the videotape". John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Very good, Peter. Now it becomes obvious why this guy was so eager to close off discussion even before David Lifton had the chance to reply! There is more to the issue than he implied. I find this kind of fakery completely reprehensible. And he won't answer my question about the inconsistency of his own book. I think it is becoming apparent that his modus operandi is precisely as I have described: Thompson is a master obfuscator! 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? Mr. Fokes,I was using "channeling" in what I hoped might be a humorous way to say "speaking for." I certainly did not mean "channeling" in the technical sense and I am sorry if I misled you. I think it is relevant to point out that Lifton and Fetzer were using a stronger version of the "full flesh left" argument back in 2003 when Lifton could write: "What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance -- not a single one -- could Rollie Zavada get the images to go full flush left. It couldn't be done because the camera just isn't designed that way." (TGZFH, P. 397). From what you say, Doug Horne is no longer contending this but admitting that other cameras can achieve "full flush left image penetration" from time to time. I have also heard that another researcher took a camera like Zapruder's to Dealey Plaza and ended up with film showing consistent "full flush left image penetration." I don't know the researcher's name but I was told he sent the film to Doug Horne. Do you know anything about this? Once again, can I substitute "speaking for" for "channeling?" Josiah Thompson Hi, Assuming Lifton was correct in stating what Horne "noticed" (and it is hearsay coming from Lifton), then Horne has changed his argument in his new book. OF course, I have no idea of what else Horne did notice that Lifton did not mention at that time! So I would not go as far as you do when you state "Horne is no longer contending this" because I only have your quote (hearsay)from Lifton about what Horne apparently noticed! So perhaps Horne's argument has not changed. In any case, Horne does state clearly that some of the images in Zavada's test film do go full flush left. I did understand your use of the word channeling. Although perhaps it was "faulty channeling." Speaking is fine too! As for your question about Dealey and Horne's efforts to get ARRB to do the proper tests .... I'll re-read that bit in his new book, and try to respond in a timely manner. I do recall he met stiff resistance. Of course, if your set arrives by post, you might find the answer yourself! Regards, Peter Fokes Well. well .... I just noticed that Horne quotes an article Mr. Thompson wrote about this issue in his 2007 essay on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. Surprisingly, Thompson describes Lifton's claim about what Horne noticed as "HEARSAY"! Thompson wrote: "Relying on *hearsay* from ARRB staffer Doug Horne, Lifton claimed that Zavada ...." In fact, the hearsay is from LIFTON because it is LIFTON who is telling us what HORNE noticed. We are not hearing from Horne himself (which we now DO in his own book.) Horne goes on to discuss the RED TRUCK ISSUE. Oh, and that is what this thread is all about! So ..... From page 1285-86 of Horne's book, VOL IV: "Thompson then published an image of two red truck frames, including the one single truck frame (from figure 3-12 of Zavada's report) that was 'full flush left,' and the images of two frames of a test pattern shot under controlled laboratory conditions (in figure 4-28 on page 37 of Study 4) that show 'full flush left' penetration of the test pattern. Thompson either misses the point (which seems unlikely because he has a very sharp mind,) or is being intellectually dishonest here. Let me help: the issue here is that every single frame in the Zapruder film shows 'full flush left' penetration (or beyond). Only one of these red truck frames published by Zavada shows this. Futhermore, a test pattern shot under controlled laboratory conditions is not germaine to shooting in Dealey Plaza. Restated, 'one red truck frame' and 'two test frames of a test pattern shot in a film lab' do not make this issue disappear, when so many other test frames shot at full telephoto or outdoor conditions by Zavada (the lady on the sidewalk next to Elm St, the majority of the truck frames, and the images of his wife Carol in front of their garage door in New York) are so grossly INCONSISTENT with all of the Zapruder frames. Unless and until Abe Zapruder's actual camera is used to conduct a filming test in Dealey Plaza, from the same location near the pergola under lighting conditions that are the same as those in Dealey Plaza the day of the assassination, and the results (no matter what they show) are obtained and compared side-by-side with the extant film in the Archives, THIS ISSUE WILL NOT GO AWAY." Horne goes on to discuss why his demand for a scientific control test at Dealey Plaza was denied. But, heck, you can read as well as me. Buy the book. Regards, Peter Fokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Josiah Thompson has misstated several critical facts, and made a number of critical errors. Perhaps he is just confused. Here is an attempt to untangle these matters. To begin with: Jim Fetzer had nothing to do with the full flush left argument. That is something that Doug Horne and I worked on together, starting in the Spring of 1999, six months after the ARRB shut down, when we were being interviewed by a German television network about the Zapruder film. At that time, we were both examining the Zavada report, and that's when we had our discussions about "full flush left." In 2003, we revisted the issue when I was writing Pig on a Leash, and I included our analysis of the matter when I submitted my essay to Fetzer, for inclusion in Hoax. Regarding "full flush left": The issue at hand (at least, the way I originally perceived it) is whether it was physically possible for Zapruder's camera to put an image all the way over to the left—"full flush left" was a phrase I coined. That's the way the frames consistently appear on the supposed camera original" Zapruder film. Were it to be the case that the Zapruder camera could not ever do that, then the mere fact that the Zapruder frames in evidence consistently go "full flush left" would be proof that the film we call "the Zapruder film" is a forgery. On the other hand, if it should turn out that the Zapruder camera can indeed put such an image very far to the left, but, as the motor is turning, and the film is going over the transport mechanism, it does so only intermittently—e.g., perhaps once in every 10 frames (and I am only speculating here, to provide an example), then that would show that while it is not a physical impossibility, such a phenomenon occurs (on a genuine camera original) only intermittently whereas on the Zapruder film, it occurs consistently, i.e., in every single frame. In that case, "full flush left" would still be an important indicator of inauthenticity, but it would be a statistical argument. Then there is still another matter: on the so-called original, there are frames (and I am not prepared here to cite frame numbers from memory) where the image actually extends BEYOND the left margin (i.e., beyond "full flush left") and (once again) that may well be physically impossible. The camera should be tested. Can it do that—produce images that extend beyond the left frame margin? If it can, then so be it. But if it is demonstrably the case that it cannot, then that (again) would constitute proof of forgery—i.e., that the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film is not a film that was made in Zapruder's camera, and at the time of the assassination. Of course, as a close student of this matter, I am very interested which is the case—is this a case of “physical impossibility” (which is what I originally believed, i.e., "the lens cannot do that, therefore, the film is a forgery") or is it the case that "the lens and motor mechanism only does it some of the time" (whereas Z film displays that all of the time). Thompson seems to think that because one of Zavada's test shots shows a red truck extending to the left, the matter is settled. It is not. There is still the matter of how it is possible for the image to extend "beyond full flush left" (which it does, in some of the frames); and also the matter of why, on Zavada's test shots, the lower right hand corner of the sprocket hole consistently shows a white area, whereas on the so called Z film, this does not happen. Finally, in response to Thompson's other comments—there is the implication of which is that I set out to defraud the reader—that is ridiculous. I never deliberately published anything in "degraded" form. I took the photos that were available in the Zavada report, as I received it, and as reproduced on a modern photo copy machine. Should it turn out that, when reproduced in color, the frames in Zavada’s test shot showing a red truck extends out to the left, then so be it. The frames in the other test sequences certainly do NOT appear to go out that far to the left. So, for me, and because of the "red truck" sequence, the issue is whether "full flush left" is an argument that proves inauthenticity because it demonstrates that the camera cannot ever do that (i.e., cannot do that at all), or whether it is a statistical argument, i.e., a powerful indicia of inauthenticity but not absolute proof which would be the case if it represented a physical impossibility. An important indication that “full flush left” may indeed provide a viable indicator of inauthenticity occurs in the frames that Thompson himself published in this post. The color sequence published in Thompson’s own post show a clearly visible jump, in intersprocket penetration, between what is visible in the last non-assassination sequence (the two ladies and a man, by the monument)—frames which no doubt come from the camera original, and which have not been altered—and the assassination sequence (i.e., starting with the first frame showing the motorcycle rounding the corner) which show full flush left penetration. One has to wonder: why is it that, when we come upon the assassination sequence, the characteristics of the lens change and the frames exhibit consistent “full flush left” behavior? (and even beyond full flush left, as noted above). Rollie Zavada would probably argue that Zapruder changed the lens setting to “full telephoto,” but that is just my speculation. The fact is: the original Zapruder camera has to be properly tested to explore this phenomenon. One does not buy cameras at garage sales, photograph one’s wife in the street, and call that “science.” One addresses the issue directly, and under laboratory conditions. One has to wonder: doesn’t Thompson notice these things? Or is he so biased in his beliefs about authenticity, that he fails to see such data when it is clearly laid out, before him, and in full color, right before his eyes, and in frames he is utilizing? Finally (and now changing the subject) there is one other matter—and this deals with another, and clearly false allegation that Thompson makes about me. In his very last paragraph, the one numbered “(2)” (and preceded by the words, “I want to make two things clear”), Thompson’s second point is that, in Murder in Dealey Plaza, that I “circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine and labeled it “the apparent through and through hole in the windshield.” Sorry, Professor Thompson, but I did nothing of the kind. I did not contribute any writing at all to “Murder in Dealey Plaza,” so I don’t know what you are talking about, and only have to wonder: “What are you smoking, Josiah, that you would write a sentence like that?” DSL David S. Lifton 12/29/09; 7:05 PM PST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) Josiah Thompson has misstated several critical facts, and made a number of critical errors. Perhaps he is just confused. Here is an attempt to untangle these matters.To begin with: Jim Fetzer had nothing to do with the full flush left argument. That is something that Doug Horne and I worked on together, starting in the Spring of 1999, six months after the ARRB shut down, when we were being interviewed by a German television network about the Zapruder film. At that time, we were both examining the Zavada report, and that's when we had our discussions about "full flush left." In 2003, we revisted the issue when I was writing Pig on a Leash, and I included our analysis of the matter when I submitted my essay to Fetzer, for inclusion in Hoax. Regarding "full flush left": The issue at hand (at least, the way I originally perceived it) is whether it was physically possible for Zapruder's camera to put an image all the way over to the left—"full flush left" was a phrase I coined. That's the way the frames consistently appear on the supposed camera original" Zapruder film. Were it to be the case that the Zapruder camera could not ever do that, then the mere fact that the Zapruder frames in evidence consistently go "full flush left" would be proof that the film we call "the Zapruder film" is a forgery. On the other hand, if it should turn out that the Zapruder camera can indeed put such an image very far to the left, but, as the motor is turning, and the film is going over the transport mechanism, it does so only intermittently—e.g., perhaps once in every 10 frames (and I am only speculating here, to provide an example), then that would show that while it is not a physical impossibility, such a phenomenon occurs (on a genuine camera original) only intermittently whereas on the Zapruder film, it occurs consistently, i.e., in every single frame. In that case, "full flush left" would still be an important indicator of inauthenticity, but it would be a statistical argument. Then there is still another matter: on the so-called original, there are frames (and I am not prepared here to cite frame numbers from memory) where the image actually extends BEYOND the left margin (i.e., beyond "full flush left") and (once again) that may well be physically impossible. The camera should be tested. Can it do that—produce images that extend beyond the left frame margin? If it can, then so be it. But if it is demonstrably the case that it cannot, then that (again) would constitute proof of forgery—i.e., that the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film is not a film that was made in Zapruder's camera, and at the time of the assassination. Of course, as a close student of this matter, I am very interested which is the case—is this a case of “physical impossibility” (which is what I originally believed, i.e., "the lens cannot do that, therefore, the film is a forgery") or is it the case that "the lens and motor mechanism only does it some of the time" (whereas Z film displays that all of the time). Thompson seems to think that because one of Zavada's test shots shows a red truck extending to the left, the matter is settled. It is not. There is still the matter of how it is possible for the image to extend "beyond full flush left" (which it does, in some of the frames); and also the matter of why, on Zavada's test shots, the lower right hand corner of the sprocket hole consistently shows a white area, whereas on the so called Z film, this does not happen. Finally, in response to Thompson's other comments—there is the implication of which is that I set out to defraud the reader—that is ridiculous. I never deliberately published anything in "degraded" form. I took the photos that were available in the Zavada report, as I received it, and as reproduced on a modern photo copy machine. Should it turn out that, when reproduced in color, the frames in Zavada’s test shot showing a red truck extends out to the left, then so be it. The frames in the other test sequences certainly do NOT appear to go out that far to the left. So, for me, and because of the "red truck" sequence, the issue is whether "full flush left" is an argument that proves inauthenticity because it demonstrates that the camera cannot ever do that (i.e., cannot do that at all), or whether it is a statistical argument, i.e., a powerful indicia of inauthenticity but not absolute proof which would be the case if it represented a physical impossibility. An important indication that “full flush left” may indeed provide a viable indicator of inauthenticity occurs in the frames that Thompson himself published in this post. The color sequence published in Thompson’s own post show a clearly visible jump, in intersprocket penetration, between what is visible in the last non-assassination sequence (the two ladies and a man, by the monument)—frames which no doubt come from the camera original, and which have not been altered—and the assassination sequence (i.e., starting with the first frame showing the motorcycle rounding the corner) which show full flush left penetration. One has to wonder: why is it that, when we come upon the assassination sequence, the characteristics of the lens change and the frames exhibit consistent “full flush left” behavior? (and even beyond full flush left, as noted above). Rollie Zavada would probably argue that Zapruder changed the lens setting to “full telephoto,” but that is just my speculation. The fact is: the original Zapruder camera has to be properly tested to explore this phenomenon. One does not buy cameras at garage sales, photograph one’s wife in the street, and call that “science.” One addresses the issue directly, and under laboratory conditions. One has to wonder: doesn’t Thompson notice these things? Or is he so biased in his beliefs about authenticity, that he fails to see such data when it is clearly laid out, before him, and in full color, right before his eyes, and in frames he is utilizing? Finally (and now changing the subject) there is one other matter—and this deals with another, and clearly false allegation that Thompson makes about me. In his very last paragraph, the one numbered “(2)” (and preceded by the words, “I want to make two things clear”), Thompson’s second point is that, in Murder in Dealey Plaza, that I “circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine and labeled it “the apparent through and through hole in the windshield.” Sorry, Professor Thompson, but I did nothing of the kind. I did not contribute any writing at all to “Murder in Dealey Plaza,” so I don’t know what you are talking about, and only have to wonder: “What are you smoking, Josiah, that you would write a sentence like that?” DSL David S. Lifton 12/29/09; 7:05 PM PST Now that is the type of answer to a question I was looking for from Tink Thanks for that great post David, you just put Tinks accusation in the trash bin Dean Edited December 30, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) 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. Edited December 30, 2009 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) You did not address Dr. Mantik's use of an optical densitometer which found the density of the exposure about 50x too dense, if I recall correctly. His work on the xrays is definitive. Yours is speculation. Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist who reads and interprets xrays EVERY DAY. People's lives depend on his expertise. What is your medical expertise? He worked with the original xrays in the archives. What copies did you work with? Jack Edited December 30, 2009 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 Hello David, It’s nice to be talking with you again. First off, I never claimed you “circled a clean and undamaged part of the windshield” and labeled it “the apparent through and through hole in the windshield.” Fetzer did that and I said so with great care. I pointed out that using the red pickup photo to demonstrate that Rollie’s tests did not show “full inter-sprocket image penetration” when that was precisely what it did show was simply outrageous. I pointed out that “for all I know, this was done without either Horne’s or Lifton’s knowledge and permission.” I went on to point out that “similar cases occur in other Fetzer books” and used the non-existent but mislabeled hole in the windshield in MIDP as a salient example. You simply didn’t read what I wrote. Now let’s cut to the chase. In TGZFH you write, “What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance – not a single one – could Rollie Zavada get the images to go full flush left. It couldn’t be done because the camera just isn’t designed that way.” (397) Then you publish shots from three of Rollie’s studies with the following reference in the text: “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.” One of the three photos.... the one with red pickup truck... exhibits the “full flush left phenomenon” but you can’t see it because the photo is so degraded. So how did this happen? As pointed out above, this sort of thing is not completely foreign to Fetzer’s other books. But he said you did it. However, over the years I’ve always found you to be a straight shooter. If you say a witness said something, ultimately it will turn out that the witness said it. You say in your reply: “I never deliberately published anything in "degraded" form. I took the photos that were available in the Zavada report, as I received it, and as reproduced on a modern photo copy machine. Should it turn out that, when reproduced in color, the frames in Zavada’s test shot showing a red truck extends out to the left, then so be it.” I understand you here to mean you never saw the sequence of frames with the red truck in color and hence never knew that it showed the “full flush left phenomenon.” Is this your point? If it is, cool. I will look on what happened as not an instance of dishonest research but simply as an unfortunate accident. Furthermore, I’ll be happy that you were able to clear it up for me. So let’s move on to the point at issue... “full inter-sprocket image penetration.” I take it that both you and Doug Horne now understand that Rollie’s studies produced this “intermittently” while the Zapruder film does it all the time or almost all the time. So we’re agreed on that. I have been told that a researcher in Dallas produced “full inter-sprocket image penetration” not just “intermittently” but “continuously” while filming in Dealey Plaza with a camera like Zapruder’s. I’d been told that this researcher actually sent his film to Doug Horne. Do you know anything about all this? Let’s say this is all true. Then doesn’t “full inter-sprocket image penetration” pretty much disappear as significant of anything. If some examples of that make and model produce it intermittently and if one camera of the same make and model is shown to do it continuously, then doesn’t this effect turn out to be simply a function of variations in the camera mechanism interacting with exposure setting, wide angle or telephoto setting and the actual lighting of the scene? Wouldn’t what you call “beyond full flush left” be also simply a function of the above? I enjoyed our talk on the phone the other day. If you think of it, could you give me a reference for the first time Lee Bowers ever mentioned the two men behind the stockade fence? Thanks a bunch. Tink Josiah Thompson has misstated several critical facts, and made a number of critical errors. Perhaps he is just confused. Here is an attempt to untangle these matters.To begin with: Jim Fetzer had nothing to do with the full flush left argument. That is something that Doug Horne and I worked on together, starting in the Spring of 1999, six months after the ARRB shut down, when we were being interviewed by a German television network about the Zapruder film. At that time, we were both examining the Zavada report, and that's when we had our discussions about "full flush left." In 2003, we revisted the issue when I was writing Pig on a Leash, and I included our analysis of the matter when I submitted my essay to Fetzer, for inclusion in Hoax. Regarding "full flush left": The issue at hand (at least, the way I originally perceived it) is whether it was physically possible for Zapruder's camera to put an image all the way over to the left—"full flush left" was a phrase I coined. That's the way the frames consistently appear on the supposed camera original" Zapruder film. Were it to be the case that the Zapruder camera could not ever do that, then the mere fact that the Zapruder frames in evidence consistently go "full flush left" would be proof that the film we call "the Zapruder film" is a forgery. On the other hand, if it should turn out that the Zapruder camera can indeed put such an image very far to the left, but, as the motor is turning, and the film is going over the transport mechanism, it does so only intermittently—e.g., perhaps once in every 10 frames (and I am only speculating here, to provide an example), then that would show that while it is not a physical impossibility, such a phenomenon occurs (on a genuine camera original) only intermittently whereas on the Zapruder film, it occurs consistently, i.e., in every single frame. In that case, "full flush left" would still be an important indicator of inauthenticity, but it would be a statistical argument. Then there is still another matter: on the so-called original, there are frames (and I am not prepared here to cite frame numbers from memory) where the image actually extends BEYOND the left margin (i.e., beyond "full flush left") and (once again) that may well be physically impossible. The camera should be tested. Can it do that—produce images that extend beyond the left frame margin? If it can, then so be it. But if it is demonstrably the case that it cannot, then that (again) would constitute proof of forgery—i.e., that the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film is not a film that was made in Zapruder's camera, and at the time of the assassination. Of course, as a close student of this matter, I am very interested which is the case—is this a case of “physical impossibility” (which is what I originally believed, i.e., "the lens cannot do that, therefore, the film is a forgery") or is it the case that "the lens and motor mechanism only does it some of the time" (whereas Z film displays that all of the time). Thompson seems to think that because one of Zavada's test shots shows a red truck extending to the left, the matter is settled. It is not. There is still the matter of how it is possible for the image to extend "beyond full flush left" (which it does, in some of the frames); and also the matter of why, on Zavada's test shots, the lower right hand corner of the sprocket hole consistently shows a white area, whereas on the so called Z film, this does not happen. Finally, in response to Thompson's other comments—there is the implication of which is that I set out to defraud the reader—that is ridiculous. I never deliberately published anything in "degraded" form. I took the photos that were available in the Zavada report, as I received it, and as reproduced on a modern photo copy machine. Should it turn out that, when reproduced in color, the frames in Zavada’s test shot showing a red truck extends out to the left, then so be it. The frames in the other test sequences certainly do NOT appear to go out that far to the left. So, for me, and because of the "red truck" sequence, the issue is whether "full flush left" is an argument that proves inauthenticity because it demonstrates that the camera cannot ever do that (i.e., cannot do that at all), or whether it is a statistical argument, i.e., a powerful indicia of inauthenticity but not absolute proof which would be the case if it represented a physical impossibility. An important indication that “full flush left” may indeed provide a viable indicator of inauthenticity occurs in the frames that Thompson himself published in this post. The color sequence published in Thompson’s own post show a clearly visible jump, in intersprocket penetration, between what is visible in the last non-assassination sequence (the two ladies and a man, by the monument)—frames which no doubt come from the camera original, and which have not been altered—and the assassination sequence (i.e., starting with the first frame showing the motorcycle rounding the corner) which show full flush left penetration. One has to wonder: why is it that, when we come upon the assassination sequence, the characteristics of the lens change and the frames exhibit consistent “full flush left” behavior? (and even beyond full flush left, as noted above). Rollie Zavada would probably argue that Zapruder changed the lens setting to “full telephoto,” but that is just my speculation. The fact is: the original Zapruder camera has to be properly tested to explore this phenomenon. One does not buy cameras at garage sales, photograph one’s wife in the street, and call that “science.” One addresses the issue directly, and under laboratory conditions. One has to wonder: doesn’t Thompson notice these things? Or is he so biased in his beliefs about authenticity, that he fails to see such data when it is clearly laid out, before him, and in full color, right before his eyes, and in frames he is utilizing? Finally (and now changing the subject) there is one other matter—and this deals with another, and clearly false allegation that Thompson makes about me. In his very last paragraph, the one numbered “(2)” (and preceded by the words, “I want to make two things clear”), Thompson’s second point is that, in Murder in Dealey Plaza, that I “circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine and labeled it “the apparent through and through hole in the windshield.” Sorry, Professor Thompson, but I did nothing of the kind. I did not contribute any writing at all to “Murder in Dealey Plaza,” so I don’t know what you are talking about, and only have to wonder: “What are you smoking, Josiah, that you would write a sentence like that?” DSL David S. Lifton 12/29/09; 7:05 PM PST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) You did not address Dr. Mantik's use of an optical densitometer which foundthe density of the exposure about 50x too dense, if I recall correctly. His work on the xrays is definitive. Yours is speculation. Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist who reads and interprets xrays EVERY DAY. People's lives depend on his expertise. What is your medical expertise? He worked with the original xrays in the archives. What copies did you work with? Jack The relationship between the black and white areas of an X-ray are determined not by some set standard, but by the time of exposure etc. I found an example of this in an old guide to an X-ray machine similar to the one used at the autopsy. This is demonstrated here: If I recall, Dr. Mantik performed his tests on the computer-enhanced x-rays. If this is correct, unless he checked with those who did the "enhancement" and found out what was done to the contrast in the X-ray, and took this into account, his tests are irrelevant. P.S. I take from your argument from authority and expertise that you agree with my assessment that the wing of bone corresponds precisely with the "white patch" and that the "6.5 mm fragment" corresponds precisely with the fragment behind the eye. Am I wrong? P.P.S. I respect Dr. Mantik and enjoy many of his articles, e.g. his review of Reclaiming History. But he is, as you say, a radiation oncologist. This is a far cry from being a radiologist charged with reading x-rays of bullet wounds. Even if he was such a radiologist, however, it wouldn't sway my opinion. Nor should it. The wing precisely corresponds to the "white patch" and the fragment lines up precisely with the fragment behind the eye. Unless he is willing to address these issues, I'm afraid, I have no choice but to trust my own eyes over his. Someone asked him about my findings at Lancer, and he said I was wrong, but then admitted he'd never X-rayed a skull with an extra layer of bone adjacent to a hole to see the effect it would have on the optical density of an X-ray. So, there it is. Edited December 30, 2009 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) This is just the kind of rubbish I had expected from Josiah Thompson. Of course I published David Lifton's chapter as he had intended that it be published, with the possible exception that the black-and-white printing may have lost more of the detail of the original color photographs. That is what editors are supposed to do, when they have chosen competent authors. If I had noticed that the image appeared to be inconsistent with the text, I would have asked David about it. But I did not notice any (real or imagined) discrepancy and, from David's reply, I am not at all sure there is anything to Josiah's complaint. Of course, he is going to throw in the kitchen sink in his obsessive attempts to malign me, but then, "What else is new?" And the windshield matter has been thoroughly explored by Doug Weldon in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which Josiah may not have read. At least three windshields were involved: the one on the car in the plaza (which was captured in the Altgens on page 149), the one that was installed at Ford Motor Company (which of course was a completely new one), and the one that the Secret Service would subsequently present (which is shown on page 157). The existence of the through-and-through hole has been extensively documented and was covered in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) in statements by Robert Livingston, M.D., and even an article from THE NEW REPUBLIC by Richard Dudman, which you can find there. But this is simply another example of Josiah's evasion of the crucial issue by tossing sand in the reader's eyes. The real problem--which, at all costs, he does not want to confront--is the inconsistency at the core of his book, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), which I again ask that he address. Josiah 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, Josiah, 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 Hello David,It’s nice to be talking with you again. First off, I never claimed you “circled a clean and undamaged part of the windshield” and labeled it “the apparent through and through hole in the windshield.” Fetzer did that and I said so with great care. I pointed out that using the red pickup photo to demonstrate that Rollie’s tests did not show “full inter-sprocket image penetration” when that was precisely what it did show was simply outrageous. I pointed out that “for all I know, this was done without either Horne’s or Lifton’s knowledge and permission.” I went on to point out that “similar cases occur in other Fetzer books” and used the non-existent but mislabeled hole in the windshield in MIDP as a salient example. You simply didn’t read what I wrote. Now let’s cut to the chase. In TGZFH you write, “What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance – not a single one – could Rollie Zavada get the images to go full flush left. It couldn’t be done because the camera just isn’t designed that way.” (397) Then you publish shots from three of Rollie’s studies with the following reference in the text: “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.” One of the three photos.... the one with red pickup truck... exhibits the “full flush left phenomenon” but you can’t see it because the photo is so degraded. So how did this happen? As pointed out above, this sort of thing is not completely foreign to Fetzer’s other books. But he said you did it. However, over the years I’ve always found you to be a straight shooter. If you say a witness said something, ultimately it will turn out that the witness said it. You say in your reply: “I never deliberately published anything in "degraded" form. I took the photos that were available in the Zavada report, as I received it, and as reproduced on a modern photo copy machine. Should it turn out that, when reproduced in color, the frames in Zavada’s test shot showing a red truck extends out to the left, then so be it.” I understand you here to mean you never saw the sequence of frames with the red truck in color and hence never knew that it showed the “full flush left phenomenon.” Is this your point? If it is, cool. I will look on what happened as not an instance of dishonest research but simply as an unfortunate accident. Furthermore, I’ll be happy that you were able to clear it up for me. So let’s move on to the point at issue... “full inter-sprocket image penetration.” I take it that both you and Doug Horne now understand that Rollie’s studies produced this “intermittently” while the Zapruder film does it all the time or almost all the time. So we’re agreed on that. I have been told that a researcher in Dallas produced “full inter-sprocket image penetration” not just “intermittently” but “continuously” while filming in Dealey Plaza with a camera like Zapruder’s. I’d been told that this researcher actually sent his film to Doug Horne. Do you know anything about all this? Let’s say this is all true. Then doesn’t “full inter-sprocket image penetration” pretty much disappear as significant of anything. If some examples of that make and model produce it intermittently and if one camera of the same make and model is shown to do it continuously, then doesn’t this effect turn out to be simply a function of variations in the camera mechanism interacting with exposure setting, wide angle or telephoto setting and the actual lighting of the scene? Wouldn’t what you call “beyond full flush left” be also simply a function of the above? I enjoyed our talk on the phone the other day. If you think of it, could you give me a reference for the first time Lee Bowers ever mentioned the two men behind the stockade fence? Thanks a bunch. Tink Josiah Thompson has misstated several critical facts, and made a number of critical errors. Perhaps he is just confused. Here is an attempt to untangle these matters.To begin with: Jim Fetzer had nothing to do with the full flush left argument. That is something that Doug Horne and I worked on together, starting in the Spring of 1999, six months after the ARRB shut down, when we were being interviewed by a German television network about the Zapruder film. At that time, we were both examining the Zavada report, and that's when we had our discussions about "full flush left." In 2003, we revisted the issue when I was writing Pig on a Leash, and I included our analysis of the matter when I submitted my essay to Fetzer, for inclusion in Hoax. Regarding "full flush left": The issue at hand (at least, the way I originally perceived it) is whether it was physically possible for Zapruder's camera to put an image all the way over to the left—"full flush left" was a phrase I coined. That's the way the frames consistently appear on the supposed camera original" Zapruder film. Were it to be the case that the Zapruder camera could not ever do that, then the mere fact that the Zapruder frames in evidence consistently go "full flush left" would be proof that the film we call "the Zapruder film" is a forgery. On the other hand, if it should turn out that the Zapruder camera can indeed put such an image very far to the left, but, as the motor is turning, and the film is going over the transport mechanism, it does so only intermittently—e.g., perhaps once in every 10 frames (and I am only speculating here, to provide an example), then that would show that while it is not a physical impossibility, such a phenomenon occurs (on a genuine camera original) only intermittently whereas on the Zapruder film, it occurs consistently, i.e., in every single frame. In that case, "full flush left" would still be an important indicator of inauthenticity, but it would be a statistical argument. Then there is still another matter: on the so-called original, there are frames (and I am not prepared here to cite frame numbers from memory) where the image actually extends BEYOND the left margin (i.e., beyond "full flush left") and (once again) that may well be physically impossible. The camera should be tested. Can it do that—produce images that extend beyond the left frame margin? If it can, then so be it. But if it is demonstrably the case that it cannot, then that (again) would constitute proof of forgery—i.e., that the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film is not a film that was made in Zapruder's camera, and at the time of the assassination. Of course, as a close student of this matter, I am very interested which is the case—is this a case of “physical impossibility” (which is what I originally believed, i.e., "the lens cannot do that, therefore, the film is a forgery") or is it the case that "the lens and motor mechanism only does it some of the time" (whereas Z film displays that all of the time). Thompson seems to think that because one of Zavada's test shots shows a red truck extending to the left, the matter is settled. It is not. There is still the matter of how it is possible for the image to extend "beyond full flush left" (which it does, in some of the frames); and also the matter of why, on Zavada's test shots, the lower right hand corner of the sprocket hole consistently shows a white area, whereas on the so called Z film, this does not happen. Finally, in response to Thompson's other comments—there is the implication of which is that I set out to defraud the reader—that is ridiculous. I never deliberately published anything in "degraded" form. I took the photos that were available in the Zavada report, as I received it, and as reproduced on a modern photo copy machine. Should it turn out that, when reproduced in color, the frames in Zavada’s test shot showing a red truck extends out to the left, then so be it. The frames in the other test sequences certainly do NOT appear to go out that far to the left. So, for me, and because of the "red truck" sequence, the issue is whether "full flush left" is an argument that proves inauthenticity because it demonstrates that the camera cannot ever do that (i.e., cannot do that at all), or whether it is a statistical argument, i.e., a powerful indicia of inauthenticity but not absolute proof which would be the case if it represented a physical impossibility. An important indication that “full flush left” may indeed provide a viable indicator of inauthenticity occurs in the frames that Thompson himself published in this post. The color sequence published in Thompson’s own post show a clearly visible jump, in intersprocket penetration, between what is visible in the last non-assassination sequence (the two ladies and a man, by the monument)—frames which no doubt come from the camera original, and which have not been altered—and the assassination sequence (i.e., starting with the first frame showing the motorcycle rounding the corner) which show full flush left penetration. One has to wonder: why is it that, when we come upon the assassination sequence, the characteristics of the lens change and the frames exhibit consistent “full flush left” behavior? (and even beyond full flush left, as noted above). Rollie Zavada would probably argue that Zapruder changed the lens setting to “full telephoto,” but that is just my speculation. The fact is: the original Zapruder camera has to be properly tested to explore this phenomenon. One does not buy cameras at garage sales, photograph one’s wife in the street, and call that “science.” One addresses the issue directly, and under laboratory conditions. One has to wonder: doesn’t Thompson notice these things? Or is he so biased in his beliefs about authenticity, that he fails to see such data when it is clearly laid out, before him, and in full color, right before his eyes, and in frames he is utilizing? Finally (and now changing the subject) there is one other matter—and this deals with another, and clearly false allegation that Thompson makes about me. In his very last paragraph, the one numbered “(2)” (and preceded by the words, “I want to make two things clear”), Thompson’s second point is that, in Murder in Dealey Plaza, that I “circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine and labeled it “the apparent through and through hole in the windshield.” Sorry, Professor Thompson, but I did nothing of the kind. I did not contribute any writing at all to “Murder in Dealey Plaza,” so I don’t know what you are talking about, and only have to wonder: “What are you smoking, Josiah, that you would write a sentence like that?” DSL David S. Lifton 12/29/09; 7:05 PM PST Edited December 30, 2009 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 It's great to see David Lifton contributing here. We all owe you a debt of gratitude for your many years of research. I think that this thread points out once again how fractured the critical community is. Strong personalities and large egos seem to be attracted to this case; as such, intense disagreements over minute details are inevitable. However, much of this is patently ridiculous. Josiah Thompson is indeed attempting to deflect attention away from Doug Horne's very real, important new research, which may well convince a lot of the undecided that the Zapruder film was altered in some way by someone. I think the strongest argument for film alteration is the overwhelming eyewitness testimony, especially the unanimous observations of the medical personnel in Dallas. 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. I respect Pat Speer's opinion, but must respectfully disagree with him here. While it's undeniable that notions of flim and body alteration are sure to be lampooned by the usual suspects, we also have an obligation to honestly pursue the truth, even when it's more difficult to "sell" it to the general public. I also don't understand why it's so hard to believe that a group of powerful conspirators, who were able to successfully assassinate the President of the United States and enlist officials of the Dallas Police, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, members of the U.S. Congress and every mainstream journalist in the country in a massive coverup (that is still ongoing nearly 50 years later), would or could alter film footage of the actual crime. I haven't read Doug's work yet, but I intend to. Thus, I really can't evaluate his claims, but if he has proven that the chain of possession for Zapruder's film is suspect, I think that not only fits in with virtually all the "evidence" in this case, but goes a long way towards validating what Fetzer, White, Lifton and co. have been saying for quite a while now. However, given how much Josiah and other passionate anti-alterationsists appear to have invested in this one particular aspect of the case, I suspect he will find Doug's efforts wanting. Btw, I was startled to read Josiah refer to Craig Lamson in glowing terms. Why would you admire someone whose credo here is that he "doesn't care" about this case? Don't you find it just the least curious that someone who "doesn't care" about a historical event spends so much time haunting a forum devoted to that subject? That's like someone who hates auto racing posting non-stop on an auto racing forum, and bragging incessantly that he "doesn't care" about it. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but that is the strangest rationale that I've ever heard, and I was really surprised that you approve of it. You do realize that, despite his protestations of impartiality, Craig has never, to my knowledge, posted anything where he doesn't defend the official version of events, don't you? Considering your previous posts about such things as the backyard photos, hole in the windshield, etc., I think it's a fair question, Josiah, to ask you where you stand now on the overall question of conspiracy. What's your view now of what happened on November 22, 1963? I realize you can't actually know the answers- neither can I, or anyone else. All we can do is speculate, and that's pretty much what we spend a lot of time doing on this forum. I'd be very interested in your speculation, and if it can be done without mentioning Jim Fetzer, that would be wonderful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now