Fetzer & Lifton channel Doug Horne: Truly or Falsely?

[David Lifton]

Tink,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comments?

[David Lifton]

Well, I see that my little "exhibit" actually uploaded. Good.

Now, I will upload, separately, each of the component parts--so that each can be examined separately for ease of study.

I invite your comments, Josiah Thompson, as to why the image of "Rollie's Red Truck" is so different, at the left margin, than the image of the Zapruder frames (and Z 244 is just one I happen to choose, since it shows Clint Hill out there on the left).

DSL

[Craig Lamson]

Well, I see that my little "exhibit" actually uploaded. Good.

Now, I will upload, separately, each of the component parts--so that each can be examined separately for ease of study.

I invite your comments, Josiah Thompson, as to why the image of "Rollie's Red Truck" is so different, at the left margin, than the image of the Zapruder frames (and Z 244 is just one I happen to choose, since it shows Clint Hill out there on the left).

DSL

David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rolie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z? The Rollie frames suffer from edge fog.

In any case its a very silly argument given normal sample variation ( still very common in high end photographic optics even today) and if it some of the best you have you are doomed.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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?

What’s so strange Don? JFK is dead. Noting will change that. And I'm willing to bet if a new investigation were to take place that showed it was Oswald alone, you would still cling to your beliefs.

So whats wrong with me not wanting to go down that road? I'm not going to argue things beyond my ability. I'm not going to argue things that simply cannot be proven. Thats a waste of time IMO. If you and others want to continue, be my guest.

I'm a photographer, and thats all. I love photography and JFK, like the moon hoax is a great place to study photography. It has enriched my understanding of the photographic process greatly, and I'm still learning. It's also a target rich environment because there are so many people without a clue pretending to do photo analysis ... and badly ... that there is plenty to study and then define. And given the vast amount of work is produced by alterationists, it's not surprising that most of my work is based on showing them incorrect. But a number of times I've shown that anti alterationist Bill Miller was wrong. So it cuts both ways.

Hey, take my work or leave it. It's clearly your choice, and I don't really care. I do this for my own personal satisfaction and entertainment...nothing else. If you find that strange, so be it. I really don't care.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Dean Hagerman]

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.

Another great question

Very nice post Don

Dean

[Dean Hagerman]

Well, I see that my little "exhibit" actually uploaded. Good.

Now, I will upload, separately, each of the component parts--so that each can be examined separately for ease of study.

I invite your comments, Josiah Thompson, as to why the image of "Rollie's Red Truck" is so different, at the left margin, than the image of the Zapruder frames (and Z 244 is just one I happen to choose, since it shows Clint Hill out there on the left).

DSL

These images show what I have always thought that David was talking about (i.e Full Flush Left)

That the image extends beyond the sprocket holes past were the image should have stopped already, all the way to the left

Thanks for those images David, they really cement your position on Full Flush Left

Dean

[Dean Hagerman]

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

Your comments?

I think you are wrong David. If you draw a simple straight line at the furthermost points of the sprocket holes of the succesive frames of your experimental frames, it can clearly be seen that there is in fact penetration in to the area beyond the edge of these points. This penetration shows best in the top frame. It is very minimal in your red car example, but nevertheless it's there. This means that it is not mechanically impossible.

I think you are wrong Duncan

Not only does your first line prove nothing but the second image you posted shows nothing even close to the image in the Z-film that extend far beyond the sprocket holes (compared to Zavadas image) and your line in the second image is not drawn to the left edge of the sprocket holes, not only that you see nothing in the area that all of your arrows point too.

In the fake Z-film you can make out the images no problem

Edited December 30, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Have you read Appendix E of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX?

If you mean the DelaRosa Report then yes, I just read it this morning and I got a good laugh out of it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...;q=&f=false

these issues....appear to be considerably beyond you. Just for my own edification, is it your view that the film is authentic? or do you believe it is a fabrication, but question the specific proof I have cited?

We'll see what's beyond whom.

Photographs and witnesses PROVE that Abe Zapruder filmed the assassination using a Bell & Howell movie camera. Zapruder authenticated the film under oath on two separate occasions (WC & Shaw trial), so the film is now in evidence and it contains powerful evidence that William Greer abruptly SLOWED the limo when he should have accelerated to safety.

The film cannot tell us what motivated Greer to suddenly slow the limo, but it does show the UNDENIABLE FACT that Greer behaved in a manner that was completely inappropriate for someone sworn to protect the president and the film also tells us that Greer lied about his behavior under oath. His behavior WAS appropriate, however, for someone sworn to assist in the assassination of JFK.

If you understand that the vehicle was brought to a halt- ......The limo stop was such a stunning indication of Secret Service complicity in the assassination that it had to be removed.

The film as it stands is already a stunning indication of Secret Service complicity, so if someone tried to alter the film to remove suspicion from Greer, I'm afraid they did not succeed in their purpose.

It is true that Vince Palamara can cite dozens of witnesses who recalled that the limo actually stopped. In The Logic of Drawing History From Ancient Documents, Charles Sanders Peirce warns that "THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LEAD one witness into error are likely to operate to deceive another."

http://books.google.com/books?id=grYAoECfZ...nts&f=false

One circumstance causing witnesses to think the limo stopped is the FACT that it SLOWED ABRUPTLY from 12 MPH to 8MPH, according to the calculations of Alvarez. Another circumstance is the fact that the VP's car DID STOP, creating the impression that the entire motorcade stopped. So witnesses can be AND OFTEN ARE MISTAKEN.

So the answer to your question is that I have so far seen NOTHING to make me doubt that the film shows exactly what Abe Zapruder saw through his viewfinder in those fateful moments.

[Dean Hagerman]

your line in the second image is not drawn to the left edge of the sprocket holes, not only that you see nothing in the area that all of your arrows point too.

It looks pretty accurate to me Dean.

I dont think so

You need to move the line over to the left of the bottom sprocket hole, your line goes through the white area of the sprocket hole not the edge of it, and if you do that it will take away that small amount of black nothing that you are claiming proves Lifton wrong

How can you say that small amount of nothing you point to in any way looks the same as the Z-film with Clint Hill and all other images clearly shown beyond the left of the sprocket holes

Duncan you are wrong

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Either you haven't been reading the posts on this thread or you have not understood them. Showing that celluloid came from a camera does not show when it was taken or by whom, much less validate the contents. There are enormous contradictions between the medical evidence and what we find in the film, which seem to have passed you by. I have no idea what you are about, but be so kind as to explain the "blob" of brains bulging forward, the missing right-front cranial mass from the x-rays, the caption for frame 313 in LIFE magazine describing how the direction of the shot was determined by the study of the film, and Abraham Zapruder's appearance on television that evening, using his had to show a blow-out to the right-front that did not exist--not to mention the results of the study of an enhanced version of the film by restoration experts! It is extremely fortunate that Doug Horne did not follow your absurd advice and suppress this new research on the film. You should read "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", by the way, to help get yourself up-to-speed.

Have you read Appendix E of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX?

If you mean the DelaRosa Report then yes, I just read it this morning and I got a good laugh out of it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...;q=&f=false

these issues....appear to be considerably beyond you. Just for my own edification, is it your view that the film is authentic? or do you believe it is a fabrication, but question the specific proof I have cited?

We'll see what's beyond whom.

Photographs and witnesses PROVE that Abe Zapruder filmed the assassination using a Bell & Howell movie camera. Zapruder authenticated the film under oath on two separate occasions (WC & Shaw trial), so the film is now in evidence and it contains powerful evidence that William Greer abruptly SLOWED the limo when he should have accelerated to safety.

The film cannot tell us what motivated Greer to suddenly slow the limo, but it does show the UNDENIABLE FACT that Greer behaved in a manner that was completely inappropriate for someone sworn to protect the president and the film also tells us that Greer lied about his behavior under oath. His behavior WAS appropriate, however, for someone sworn to assist in the assassination of JFK.

If you understand that the vehicle was brought to a halt- ......The limo stop was such a stunning indication of Secret Service complicity in the assassination that it had to be removed.

The film as it stands is already a stunning indication of Secret Service complicity, so if someone tried to alter the film to remove suspicion from Greer, I'm afraid they did not succeed in their purpose.

It is true that Vince Palamara can cite dozens of witnesses who recalled that the limo actually stopped. In The Logic of Drawing History From Ancient Documents, Charles Sanders Peirce warns that "THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LEAD one witness into error are likely to operate to deceive another."

http://books.google.com/books?id=grYAoECfZ...nts&f=false

One circumstance causing witnesses to think the limo stopped is the FACT that it SLOWED ABRUPTLY from 12 MPH to 8MPH, according to the calculations of Alvarez. Another circumstance is the fact that the VP's car DID STOP, creating the impression that the entire motorcade stopped. So witnesses can be AND OFTEN ARE MISTAKEN.

So the answer to your question is that I have so far seen NOTHING to make me doubt that the film shows exactly what Abe Zapruder saw through his viewfinder in those fateful moments.

Edited December 30, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[David G. Healy]

Have you read Appendix E of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX?

If you mean the DelaRosa Report then yes, I just read it this morning and I got a good laugh out of it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...;q=&f=false

these issues....appear to be considerably beyond you. Just for my own edification, is it your view that the film is authentic? or do you believe it is a fabrication, but question the specific proof I have cited?

We'll see what's beyond whom.

Photographs and witnesses PROVE that Abe Zapruder filmed the assassination using a Bell & Howell movie camera. Zapruder authenticated the film under oath on two separate occasions (WC & Shaw trial), so the film is now in evidence and it contains powerful evidence that William Greer abruptly SLOWED the limo when he should have accelerated to safety.

The film cannot tell us what motivated Greer to suddenly slow the limo, but it does show the UNDENIABLE FACT that Greer behaved in a manner that was completely inappropriate for someone sworn to protect the president and the film also tells us that Greer lied about his behavior under oath. His behavior WAS appropriate, however, for someone sworn to assist in the assassination of JFK.

If you understand that the vehicle was brought to a halt- ......The limo stop was such a stunning indication of Secret Service complicity in the assassination that it had to be removed.

The film as it stands is already a stunning indication of Secret Service complicity, so if someone tried to alter the film to remove suspicion from Greer, I'm afraid they did not succeed in their purpose.

It is true that Vince Palamara can cite dozens of witnesses who recalled that the limo actually stopped. In The Logic of Drawing History From Ancient Documents, Charles Sanders Peirce warns that "THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LEAD one witness into error are likely to operate to deceive another."

http://books.google.com/books?id=grYAoECfZ...nts&f=false

One circumstance causing witnesses to think the limo stopped is the FACT that it SLOWED ABRUPTLY from 12 MPH to 8MPH, according to the calculations of Alvarez. Another circumstance is the fact that the VP's car DID STOP, creating the impression that the entire motorcade stopped. So witnesses can be AND OFTEN ARE MISTAKEN.

So the answer to your question is that I have so far seen NOTHING to make me doubt that the film shows exactly what Abe Zapruder saw through his viewfinder in those fateful moments.

Ray,

What I enjoy about all the above (and others of course) posts is simple: the Lone Nut faithful would have us believe that a simple murder occurred in Dealey Plaza, Nov 22nd 1963. So simple in fact we're led to believe only a piece of film taken by someone (or family trust) whom made 16 million buckeroos for the piece of unchallenged piece of film... This someone (and his assistant) whom we know damn little about. While others in the dipsy cast of DP related characters (and their families) AND who their dentists are? LMFAO....

The most overused phrase I see here and elsewhere is the eye-witness reliability bullsh*t, here and elsewhere, over and over... Kinda makes you wonder why police departments have homicide detectives on staff, doesn't it? I could just see a prosecutor stand up in court when the judge gavels a trial in session: "Your Honor we don't need no stinkin' eyewitnesses, we got the 6PM news film -- you can give the case to the jury now, Your Honor...

Comments Counselor?

Edited December 30, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Peter Fokes]

Well, I see that my little "exhibit" actually uploaded. Good.

Now, I will upload, separately, each of the component parts--so that each can be examined separately for ease of study.

I invite your comments, Josiah Thompson, as to why the image of "Rollie's Red Truck" is so different, at the left margin, than the image of the Zapruder frames (and Z 244 is just one I happen to choose, since it shows Clint Hill out there on the left).

DSL

David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rolie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z? The Rollie frames suffer from edge fog.

In any case its a very silly argument given normal sample variation ( still very common in high end photographic optics even today) and if it some of the best you have you are doomed.

Suffers from edge fog.

Well, so I suppose Clint Hill is "edge fog" too, eh?

Good ole, Edge Fog Hill!

Gotta love the over-the-top word usage of some posters! DOOMED

Very interesting post, Mr. Lifton. Thank you.

Regards,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

[Peter Fokes]

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

Your comments?

I think you are wrong David. If you draw a simple straight line at the furthermost points of the sprocket holes of the succesive frames of your experimental frames, it can clearly be seen that there is in fact penetration in to the area beyond the edge of these points. This penetration shows best in the top frame. It is very minimal in your red car example, but nevertheless it's there. This means that it is not mechanically impossible.

Would you be so kind to draw a similar line on the frames with Clint Hill? Then we could compare the red truck penetration versus the Clint Hill penetration.

Does a solid color lend itself to this odd "edge fog" phenomena more than a ... lets say ... human face, or light horizontal line?

Cheerio,

Peter Fokes

[Craig Lamson]

Well, I see that my little "exhibit" actually uploaded. Good.

Now, I will upload, separately, each of the component parts--so that each can be examined separately for ease of study.

I invite your comments, Josiah Thompson, as to why the image of "Rollie's Red Truck" is so different, at the left margin, than the image of the Zapruder frames (and Z 244 is just one I happen to choose, since it shows Clint Hill out there on the left).

DSL

David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rolie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z? The Rollie frames suffer from edge fog.

In any case its a very silly argument given normal sample variation ( still very common in high end photographic optics even today) and if it some of the best you have you are doomed.

Suffers from edge fog.

Well, so I suppose Clint Hill is "edge fog" too, eh?

Good ole, Edge Fog Hill!

Gotta love the over-the-top word usage of some posters! DOOMED

Very interesting post, Mr. Lifton. Thank you.

Regards,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

Yes, SUFFERS from edge fog, thats the RED and YELLOW stuff you see on the left edge of the film!

And yes, DOOMED. This is about as weak an argument as you will ever find. That is is still being pimped by Lifton and Horne speaks volumes. Clearly the camera records into the margins, some cameras more than others. Thats called sample variation and is still a problem photographic optics to this day.

The writing of this imformation depends on F-stop,(varies the vignetting at the edge of the circle of illumination...it gets darkler and wider as the f-stop is reduced like say f16 to f11)), the meter adjustment and mechanical connection to the aperture diaphram (since the meter controls the f-stop chosen), the exact positioning of the end stop for the zoom lens (does it allow the lens to be zooed in a bit more or less) and finally the image content in the vingnetted area. (since vignetting is a reduction of light reaching the film, it will be bright and or contrasty items being recorded).

Full flush left is a very weak argument for alteration. And it speaks poorly of those still pushing it. It's a straw grasp at best. Given the weakness of the argument is it any wonder no one wants to let the Zapruder out to camera to tbe used to test this weak argument?

[Dean Hagerman]

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

Your comments?

I think you are wrong David. If you draw a simple straight line at the furthermost points of the sprocket holes of the succesive frames of your experimental frames, it can clearly be seen that there is in fact penetration in to the area beyond the edge of these points. This penetration shows best in the top frame. It is very minimal in your red car example, but nevertheless it's there. This means that it is not mechanically impossible.

Would you be so kind to draw a similar line on the frames with Clint Hill? Then we could compare the red truck penetration versus the Clint Hill penetration.

Does a solid color lend itself to this odd "edge fog" phenomena more than a ... lets say ... human face, or light horizontal line?

Cheerio,

Peter Fokes

Thank you Peter

I would love to see that Duncan