Fetzer & Lifton channel Doug Horne: Truly or Falsely?

[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

Dean,

Have you been to an Optician recently? if not, now's the time.

The line is on the edges of the sprocket hole edges, and I doubt any of the other photo analysts will disagree. I'll give you a clue as to why you think it goes through the sprocket hole...over use of plus contrast to the white sprocket hole areas, added by whoever created the image.

I would also suggest not misquoting me. I did NOT say that David's images look the same as the Z-film image with Clint Hill.

Sorry that I "misquoted" you, what are you trying to prove or say then? That David is wrong? Am I correct in saying that?

Why dont you use a different color line to prove your point?

I can do that but im at work all day, if you want to prove me wrong use a bright green line and we can see if it lines up with the sprocket holes and takes away the tiny amount of black that goes beyond the sprocket holes

Dean

Also I can see the uneven fuzz of the sprocket hole on the bottom left instead of the sharp white line that you used, so do you still think I should get my eyes checked?

Because we should not see the fuzzy line of the sprocket hole if the line is lined up correctly as you say, we should see a sharp line

Anyone agree with me?

Edited December 30, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Todd W. Vaughan]

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

Dean,

Have you been to an Optician recently? if not, now's the time.

The line is on the edges of the sprocket hole edges, and I doubt any of the other photo analysts will disagree. I'll give you a clue as to why you think it goes through the sprocket hole...over use of plus contrast to the white sprocket hole areas, added by whoever created the image.

I would also suggest not misquoting me. I did NOT say that David's images look the same as the Z-film image with Clint Hill.

Sorry that I "misquoted" you, what are you trying to prove or say then? That David is wrong? Am I correct in saying that?

Why dont you use a different color line to prove your point?

I can do that but im at work all day, if you want to prove me wrong use a bright green line and we can see if it lines up with the sprocket holes and takes away the tiny amount of black that goes beyond the sprocket holes

Dean

Also I can see the uneven fuzz of the sprocket hole on the bottom left instead of the sharp white line that you used, so do you still think I should get my eyes checked?

Because we should not see the fuzzy line of the sprocket hole if the line is lined up correctly as you say, we should see a sharp line

Anyone agree with me?

Dean,

I agree that Duncan's line is to the right of the sprocket hole's left-most edge.

Todd

Edited December 30, 2009 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Josiah Thompson]

David,

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

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

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

Josiah Thompson

Tink,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comments?

[Pat Speer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even so, I'll try again.

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

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

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

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

This is demonstrated here:

And here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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,.......

At the 2003 Duquesne conference I asked the forensic pathology panel if they agreed that only a new autopsy would resolve all the conflicts in the medical evidence, and none of these distinguished experts disagreed. The original autopsy was performed by amateurs, and until a new autopsy is performed, I am unable to give definitive answers on the wounds to JFK's body. We do know however that an entry wound in JFK's throat was noted at parkland hospital, and we also know that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was driven backward by a bullet in the brain, apparently fired from the right front.

There have been various efforts to rationalize the Head Snap and make it seem consistent with a shot from behind, but none of these efforts (jet effect, neuro) are remotely persuasive, and the fact remains that Malcolm Perry was quite certain that the throat wound was an entry. So my view for now is that JFK was shot twice from the front, and that view may be modified depending on the findings of a new autopsy or other unassailable source.

The Zapruder film is entirely consistent with JFK being struck twice from the front, and I submit that trying to have the Z-film declared a fake does nothing to resolve the problems with the autopsy.

[David G. Healy]

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,.......

At the 2003 Duquesne conference I asked the forensic pathology panel if they agreed that only a new autopsy would resolve all the conflicts in the medical evidence, and none of these distinguished experts disagreed. The original autopsy was performed by amateurs, and until a new autopsy is performed, I am unable to give definitive answers on the wounds to JFK's body. We do know however that an entry wound in JFK's throat was noted at parkland hospital, and we also know that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was driven backward by a bullet in the brain, apparently fired from the right front.

There have been various efforts to rationalize the Head Snap and make it seem consistent with a shot from behind, but none of these efforts (jet effect, neuro) are remotely persuasive, and the fact remains that Malcolm Perry was quite certain that the throat wound was an entry. So my view for now is that JFK was shot twice from the front, and that view may be modified depending on the findings of a new autopsy or other unassailable source.

The Zapruder film is entirely consistent with JFK being struck twice from the front, and I submit that trying to have the Z-film declared a fake does nothing to resolve the problems with the autopsy.

BRAVO Ray... and your conclusion does not make not one wit of difference if I think, or, you think the Z-film is altered. The Z-film debate is and for recent years a canard -- fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls... A now needless debate that stymies progress...

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have no idea what you are about

Well I am NOT about FALSELY representing what other people say.

It is extremely fortunate that Doug Horne did not follow your absurd advice and suppress this new research on the film.

I did not advise Doug to suppress the HEARSAY of agent "Smith" (who apparently never existed), I suggested that he publish it separate from his book. In fact I suggested he publish it on Maryferrel.org where the whole world could read it. I don't know what you are about, sir, but publishing something on maryferrel.org does not amount to suppression.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here's the post in which you advised Doug Horne to drop the chapter on Zapruder film fakery from his book and send it to the Mary Farrell archives instead:

J. Raymond Carro...

Nov 17 2009, 12:17 PM

Post #33

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1617

Joined: 10-March 05

Member No.: 2672

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

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

By Douglas P. Horne

Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassinations Records Review Board

Table of Contents

Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery p. 1185

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by J. Raymond Carroll: Nov 17 2009, 12:24 PM

Now given that his books are receiving massive public attention--which no doubt is going to grow across time--and the Mary Farrell Archives are obscure and their existence known only to a few, surely you can appreciate that your suggestion would have had the effect of suppressing access to this information, in fact, no matter how you want to cover yourself. So I think there is nothing I have said about your position that misrepresents it. You do not even seem to understand that there was an agent who identified himself as "William Smith", where the name appears to be a pseudonym. Such an agent did exist and brought a film to the NPIC.

I have no idea what you are about

Well I am NOT about FALSELY representing what other people say.

It is extremely fortunate that Doug Horne did not follow your absurd advice and suppress this new research on the film.

I did not advise Doug to suppress the HEARSAY of agent "Smith" (who apparently never existed), I suggested that he publish it separate from his book. In fact I suggested he publish it on Maryferrel.org where the whole world could read it. I don't know what you are about, sir, but publishing something on maryferrel.org does not amount to suppression.

[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

Dean,

Have you been to an Optician recently? if not, now's the time.

The line is on the edges of the sprocket hole edges, and I doubt any of the other photo analysts will disagree. I'll give you a clue as to why you think it goes through the sprocket hole...over use of plus contrast to the white sprocket hole areas, added by whoever created the image.

I would also suggest not misquoting me. I did NOT say that David's images look the same as the Z-film image with Clint Hill.

Sorry that I "misquoted" you, what are you trying to prove or say then? That David is wrong? Am I correct in saying that?

Why dont you use a different color line to prove your point?

I can do that but im at work all day, if you want to prove me wrong use a bright green line and we can see if it lines up with the sprocket holes and takes away the tiny amount of black that goes beyond the sprocket holes

Dean

Also I can see the uneven fuzz of the sprocket hole on the bottom left instead of the sharp white line that you used, so do you still think I should get my eyes checked?

Because we should not see the fuzzy line of the sprocket hole if the line is lined up correctly as you say, we should see a sharp line

Anyone agree with me?

Dean,

I agree that Duncan's line is to the right of the sprocket hole's left-most edge.

Todd

Thank you Todd

Dean

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even so, I'll try again.

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

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

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

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

This is demonstrated here:

And here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dean Hagerman]

Why dont you use a different color line to prove your point?

I can do that but im at work all day, if you want to prove me wrong use a bright green line and we can see if it lines up with the sprocket holes and takes away the tiny amount of black that goes beyond the sprocket holes

Dean

Here you go Dean.

Click on the image to see it larger. It's accurate, and the same dark area beyond the edges in the intersprocket area is visible. I think the white colour may have been confusing both you and Todd.

Duncan you are still wrong

Look at the top sprocket hole, your still not over left far enough

And even the bottom sprocket hole I can still see white fuzz on to the left of the green line

I dont know why you made the line blink, it should be solid

I will do my own when I get home, im willing to bet that small amount of black will not show to the left of the line, thus proving Liftons full flush left theory on THESE frames taken by Zavada

I know you are honest Duncan so im not saying you are doing this on purpose, but you are not putting the line where it belongs

We will compare lines when I get home and do one myself

Dean

[David Lifton]

To Craig Lamson:

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

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

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

Let me address your post in detail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DSL

1:55 PM; PST

Los Angeles, CA.

[Josiah Thompson]

"BRAVO Ray... and your conclusion does not make not one wit of difference if I think, or, you think the Z-film is altered. The Z-film debate is and for recent years a canard -- fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls... A now needless debate that stymies progress..."

I couldn't agree with you more, David. All of this terrain has been covered over and over again while the interesting work on the Kennedy assassination stands apart from it. It is becoming more and more clear that there is a kind of exact correspondence between the acoustics map of the assassination and the map of the assassination provided by the Zapruder film. A sound impulse on the Dallas police channel is matched by something happening on the Zapruder film... some sign of a bullet hit in the car or some sign of a shot's sound making Zapruder jerk the camera (and, in many cases, both). The overall picture is of five shots in all, one from the stockade fence, the rest from the north end of Elm Street. From what I've been reading, this picture of what happened in Dealey Plaza is edging ever closer to proof.

So let's ask this question: If it can be proven that the extant Zapruder film matches in content the sound impulses appearing on the Dallas police dictabelt, doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film? Let's also ask a second question: No discrepancy between the extant Zapruder film and any other film or photo taken in Dealey Plaza has ever been shown. Doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film?

The endless debate about Z-film authenticity is not just (as you put it) "fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls." Rather it distracts from productive research that will use the Zapruder film as an incalculably important resource in proving that a shot was fired from the right front of the limousine.

It's a pleasure to agree with you about something, David.

Josiah Thompson

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,.......

At the 2003 Duquesne conference I asked the forensic pathology panel if they agreed that only a new autopsy would resolve all the conflicts in the medical evidence, and none of these distinguished experts disagreed. The original autopsy was performed by amateurs, and until a new autopsy is performed, I am unable to give definitive answers on the wounds to JFK's body. We do know however that an entry wound in JFK's throat was noted at parkland hospital, and we also know that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was driven backward by a bullet in the brain, apparently fired from the right front.

There have been various efforts to rationalize the Head Snap and make it seem consistent with a shot from behind, but none of these efforts (jet effect, neuro) are remotely persuasive, and the fact remains that Malcolm Perry was quite certain that the throat wound was an entry. So my view for now is that JFK was shot twice from the front, and that view may be modified depending on the findings of a new autopsy or other unassailable source.

The Zapruder film is entirely consistent with JFK being struck twice from the front, and I submit that trying to have the Z-film declared a fake does nothing to resolve the problems with the autopsy.

BRAVO Ray... and your conclusion does not make not one wit of difference if I think, or, you think the Z-film is altered. The Z-film debate is and for recent years a canard -- fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls... A now needless debate that stymies progress...

Edited December 30, 2009 by Josiah Thompson

[Pat Speer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even so, I'll try again.

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

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

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

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

This is demonstrated here:

And here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited December 30, 2009 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Josiah,

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

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

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne has consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork." It was their professional judgment that the wound to the back of the head had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in. No matter how much you may have resisted the inference, the weight of the evidence has made it abundantly clear that the extant film is a fabrication, which should have been apparent to you already when you published SIX SECONDS in 1967!

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

Jim

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