Yet another copy of the Zapruder film?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

My understanding from when I viewed the slides at the Archives with Doug DeSalles, Arthur and Margaret Snyder, is that the slides there ARE the first generation slides made by/for the WC. We had a bit of a discussion about the slides with the Archivist that day, in part, about how sad that and a slide was missing from this historic collection. I do not know how long the slides have been at and available at the Archives. I first saw them in 1994 or 1995.

As for your assertions about Tink and his "unlimited access" and time spent .... citations, please!

And your comments on the issues Tink's comments pointed out, that I asked you about?

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

You keep making things up.

I didn't have "unlimited access" to "clear copies" of the Zapruder film. The 4" by 5" transparencies never left the offices of LIFE magazine. I was in Philadelphia. LIFE was in New York. I never spent "hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it." My total time studying these transparencies was probably something like four or five hours, all this in November and December 1966. I was told the transparencies were made from the camera original film and not a copy.

Are you making all this up to try to portray me as "suspect" in some way? Fetzer does that quite a bit. Why? Is this really just because we intruded into your turf on the windshield and put out information you were not aware of concerning two witnesses? I would have thought you would have been happy about what Barb Junkarrinen, Jerry Logan and I put together since it made your own position stronger.

Josiah Thompson

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

With all due respect here Tink I think you're missing the point.

Pamela's next line is "I saw Josiah Thompson speaking with the devil."

Best to you,

Jerry

HAHA! That's pretty much it, Jerry ... and due to some past conflicts with her beliefs running contrary to documentation, and it being pointed out to her in discussions elsewhere, as well as my research into some of Judyth Baker's claims that did not make Pamela happy because none of it turned out well for Judyth, it may be that she has decided that I AM that devil.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Pamela Brown]

Whenever we know CIA is involved, surely we need to acknowledge that what we are told to believe is not true. So, the cute little script about Zapruder and Stolley and the Z-film and exactly how many copies were made etc etc is probably the script we are supposed to believe...the truth is out there...but it is definitely not that.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Barb,

You viewed one (or all) of the three sets of slides at the Archives, correct?

Did you by chance do an detailed inventory of those sets of slides?

Thanks.

Todd

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

My understanding from when I viewed the slides at the Archives with Doug DeSalles, Arthur and Margaret Snyder, is that the slides there ARE the first generation slides made by/for the WC. We had a bit of a discussion about the slides with the Archivist that day, in part, about how sad that and a slide was missing from this historic collection. I do not know how long the slides have been at and available at the Archives. I first saw them in 1994 or 1995.

As for your assertions about Tink and his "unlimited access" and time spent .... citations, please!

And your comments on the issues Tink's comments pointed out, that I asked you about?

Barb :-)

[Pamela Brown]

For those few on this forum for whom this is not common knowledge -- Tink's own words from SSID:

Re time spent (in NYC) with the Z-film:

"As LIFE's special consultant on the assassination, I have had unlimited access to the film and have spent literally HUNDREDS of hours examining it. (caps mine) p. 14

Re the version of the Z-film he saw at LIFE v the version he saw at NARA:

"I was certain the picture was infinitely brighter and clearer than the one I had seen only days before in the National Archives in Washington." p.8

Re the difference in quality between the LIFE 4X5 slides and the NARA 35mm slides:

"I looked at several of them [LIFE slides] and again they were unmistakably clearer than the smaller slides that the Commission had used and that I had seen at the Archives." p.9

[Paul Rigby]

For those few on this forum for whom this is not common knowledge -- Tink's own words from SSID:

Re time spent (in NYC) with the Z-film:

"As LIFE's special consultant on the assassination, I have had unlimited access to the film and have spent literally HUNDREDS of hours examining it. (caps mine) p. 14

Re the version of the Z-film he saw at LIFE v the version he saw at NARA:

"I was certain the picture was infinitely brighter and clearer than the one I had seen only days before in the National Archives in Washington." p.8

Re the difference in quality between the LIFE 4X5 slides and the NARA 35mm slides:

"I looked at several of them [LIFE slides] and again they were unmistakably clearer than the smaller slides that the Commission had used and that I had seen at the Archives." p.9

Which begs the obvious question - and all answering it must promise to keep a straight face, lest they be banished forever from what Tink today solemnly called "the community of scholars" - which version of Thompson's Life-sanctioned "exposure" to the Z fake was/is the lie? Today's, or that offered in SSID? Or are both complete fabrications?

My congratulations, Pamela, on what is unquestionably the most thorough-going demolition of Thompson's credility, er, today.

[David G. Healy]

You keep making things up.

I didn't have "unlimited access" to "clear copies" of the Zapruder film. The 4" by 5" transparencies never left the offices of LIFE magazine. I was in Philadelphia. LIFE was in New York. I never spent "hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it." My total time studying these transparencies was probably something like four or five hours, all this in November and December 1966. I was told the transparencies were made from the camera original film and not a copy.

Are you making all this up to try to portray me as "suspect" in some way? Fetzer does that quite a bit. Why? Is this really just because we intruded into your turf on the windshield and put out information you were not aware of concerning two witnesses? I would have thought you would have been happy about what Barb Junkarrinen, Jerry Logan and I put together since it made your own position stronger.

Josiah Thompson

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

With all due respect here Tink I think you're missing the point.

Pamela's next line is "I saw Josiah Thompson speaking with the devil."

Best to you,

Jerry

HAHA! That's pretty much it, Jerry ... and due to some past conflicts with her beliefs running contrary to documentation, and it being pointed out to her in discussions elsewhere, as well as my research into some of Judyth Baker's claims that did not make Pamela happy because none of it turned out well for Judyth, it may be that she has decided that I AM that devil.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb, please stay focused on the thread topic, is that a real challenge for you and Jer these day's?

[Paul Rigby]

For those few on this forum for whom this is not common knowledge -- Tink's own words from SSID:

Re time spent (in NYC) with the Z-film:

"As LIFE's special consultant on the assassination, I have had unlimited access to the film and have spent literally HUNDREDS of hours examining it. (caps mine) p. 14

Re the version of the Z-film he saw at LIFE v the version he saw at NARA:

"I was certain the picture was infinitely brighter and clearer than the one I had seen only days before in the National Archives in Washington." p.8

Re the difference in quality between the LIFE 4X5 slides and the NARA 35mm slides:

"I looked at several of them [LIFE slides] and again they were unmistakably clearer than the smaller slides that the Commission had used and that I had seen at the Archives." p.9

Which begs the obvious question - and all answering it must promise to keep a straight face, lest they be banished forever from what Tink today solemnly called "the community of scholars" - which version of Thompson's Life-sanctioned "exposure" to the Z fake was/is the lie? Today's, or that offered in SSID? Or are both complete fabrications?

My congratulations, Pamela, on what is unquestionably the most thorough-going demolition of Thompson's credility, er, today.

By way of illustrating just how robust - and enduring - is Thompson's commitment to honest scholarship, a further example:

Josiah Thompson, “Proof that the Zapruder Film is Authentic:

“The FBI first learned of the Muchmore film, for example, when it was shown on the New York City station WNEW-TV just after midday on Tuesday, November 26th.”

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...pson-proof.html

The Truth:

5WCH140

Mr. Specter:

How did you obtain a copy of that film?

Mr. Shaneyfelt:

Our first knowledge of this came as a result of a review of the book "Four Days" which covers the assassination period, in which representatives of the FBI noted a colored picture taken from a motion picture film that did not match either the Nix film or the Zapruder film.

Once we established that, then we investigated and learned that it was made by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, and was at that time in the possession of United Press International in New York, and made arrangements for them to furnish us with a copy of the Muchmore film. That is the copy that I used for examination.

[Josiah Thompson]

You sure got me there, Pamela. Well done! I got to admire the shot. The truth is clearly that I only had four or five hours with the 4" by 5" transparencies in New York. Of course, I had "unlimited access" to the slides I had copied and spent "hundreds of hours" with them. Is that what I meant back in 1967? I don't have a clue.

Tink

name='Pamela McElwain-Brown' date='Jan 7 2010, 08:31 PM' post='177929']

For those few on this forum for whom this is not common knowledge -- Tink's own words from SSID:

Re time spent (in NYC) with the Z-film:

"As LIFE's special consultant on the assassination, I have had unlimited access to the film and have spent literally HUNDREDS of hours examining it. (caps mine) p. 14

Re the version of the Z-film he saw at LIFE v the version he saw at NARA:

"I was certain the picture was infinitely brighter and clearer than the one I had seen only days before in the National Archives in Washington." p.8

Re the difference in quality between the LIFE 4X5 slides and the NARA 35mm slides:

"I looked at several of them [LIFE slides] and again they were unmistakably clearer than the smaller slides that the Commission had used and that I had seen at the Archives." p.9

[Jack White]

Paul,

Brilliant! You are completely right. This study demonstrates the gross inadequacy of his performance in SIX SECONDS and reinforces the points I have been making. Thank you very much for posting this. I will put it up on the other thread. This is too good for anyone to miss!

Jim

Hi Jim!

Josiah's initial post in this thread, was a thoughtful, straightforward commentary that clearly raises points that anyone taking issue with the pedigree of the Zapruder film would have to ... and should *want* to ... address.

I am interested in your comments on just the issues his comments raised ... particularly the problem of altering a film that has already left the barn, AND the totally uncontrollable problem of the existence of other films and photos unknown to those working to perpetrate a film fraud in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

Without thoughtful consideration of these issues, how can moving forward without some plausible response to these sorts of issues be taken as anything other than "gross inadequacy" when it comes to a real search for the truth? First things first, and all that. <g>

Your comments on just those two issues would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks ... and Happy New Year,

Barb :-)

Another commentator who has not read HORNE IV.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Barb,

You viewed one (or all) of the three sets of slides at the Archives, correct?

Did you by chance do an detailed inventory of those sets of slides?

Thanks.

Todd

Hi Todd,

The second time I saw the slides (saw same set two different years), I made notes about each slide...anything remarkable to me about what was more clearly seen in the slide, etc. I believe I did note the slide that was missing. We also found one loose in the box.

I don't know what you mean by detailed "inventory"?

Bests,

Barb :-)

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

My understanding from when I viewed the slides at the Archives with Doug DeSalles, Arthur and Margaret Snyder, is that the slides there ARE the first generation slides made by/for the WC. We had a bit of a discussion about the slides with the Archivist that day, in part, about how sad that and a slide was missing from this historic collection. I do not know how long the slides have been at and available at the Archives. I first saw them in 1994 or 1995.

As for your assertions about Tink and his "unlimited access" and time spent .... citations, please!

And your comments on the issues Tink's comments pointed out, that I asked you about?

Barb :-)

[Paul Rigby]

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

As for your assertions about Tink and his "unlimited access" and time spent .... citations, please!

I asked you about?

Barb

Pamela gave you the citations you requested here:

(Pamela McElwain-Brown @ Jan 7 2010, 08:31 PM)

For those few on this forum for whom this is not common knowledge -- Tink's own words from SSID:

Re time spent (in NYC) with the Z-film:

"As LIFE's special consultant on the assassination, I have had unlimited access to the film and have spent literally HUNDREDS of hours examining it. (caps mine) p. 14

Re the version of the Z-film he saw at LIFE v the version he saw at NARA:

"I was certain the picture was infinitely brighter and clearer than the one I had seen only days before in the National Archives in Washington." p.8

Re the difference in quality between the LIFE 4X5 slides and the NARA 35mm slides:

"I looked at several of them [LIFE slides] and again they were unmistakably clearer than the smaller slides that the Commission had used and that I had seen at the Archives." p.9

Now, Barb, it's time for your response.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pamela and Paul, You are doing a brilliant job of puncturing the illusion created by SIX SECONDS (1967). Barb does not seem to be up-to-speed regarding the issues that are most relevant to the current discussion. Here is the first post on the "SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?" thread, where she may find the fourth paragraph most helpful. The "blob", of course, remains visible for around thirty more frames. Doug Horne has reported that at least seven film experts now concur--eight, including Ryan.

Post #1

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 430

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

Josiah,

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

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

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

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

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

Jim

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Dec 31 2009, 01:23 AM)

"My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?"

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

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

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

Josiah Thompson

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 30 2009, 02:23 AM)

PI Thompson,

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper cannot have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. It is neither a moral or a mental lapse to not observe what was not observable due to the transition from color to black-and-white.

But your lapse appears to be of a different character altogether. The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328 was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? You didn't notice the difference?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Since you could be thought to have been obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency--then or now?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. I invite you to clarify and correct this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning.

My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?

James H. Fetzer

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

As for your assertions about Tink and his "unlimited access" and time spent .... citations, please!

I asked you about?

Barb

Pamela gave you the citations you requested here:

(Pamela McElwain-Brown @ Jan 7 2010, 08:31 PM)

For those few on this forum for whom this is not common knowledge -- Tink's own words from SSID:

Re time spent (in NYC) with the Z-film:

"As LIFE's special consultant on the assassination, I have had unlimited access to the film and have spent literally HUNDREDS of hours examining it. (caps mine) p. 14

Re the version of the Z-film he saw at LIFE v the version he saw at NARA:

"I was certain the picture was infinitely brighter and clearer than the one I had seen only days before in the National Archives in Washington." p.8

Re the difference in quality between the LIFE 4X5 slides and the NARA 35mm slides:

"I looked at several of them [LIFE slides] and again they were unmistakably clearer than the smaller slides that the Commission had used and that I had seen at the Archives." p.9

Now, Barb, it's time for your response.

Edited January 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

As for your assertions about Tink and his "unlimited access" and time spent .... citations, please!

I asked you about?

Barb

Pamela gave you the citations you requested here:

(Pamela McElwain-Brown @ Jan 7 2010, 08:31 PM)

For those few on this forum for whom this is not common knowledge -- Tink's own words from SSID:

Re time spent (in NYC) with the Z-film:

"As LIFE's special consultant on the assassination, I have had unlimited access to the film and have spent literally HUNDREDS of hours examining it. (caps mine) p. 14

Re the version of the Z-film he saw at LIFE v the version he saw at NARA:

"I was certain the picture was infinitely brighter and clearer than the one I had seen only days before in the National Archives in Washington." p.8

Re the difference in quality between the LIFE 4X5 slides and the NARA 35mm slides:

"I looked at several of them [LIFE slides] and again they were unmistakably clearer than the smaller slides that the Commission had used and that I had seen at the Archives." p.9

Now, Barb, it's time for your response.

I asked for citations on the access and time spent. My response to her posting them? Thank you, Pamela.

I am still waiting for her response to the questions I asked her in my post, #8 in this thread:

"There ARE "right"questions that must be asked. And Josiah's comments raise the initial "right" questions that really must have plausible answers before one can move on to considering alteration.

I am interested in your thoughts on:

1. How plotters could extensively alter the Z film (and extensively is what is theorized) given that copies of the film had already been made and dispersed, Zapruder had a copy himself, and Life had the original ... and none of these copies were seized?

2. How the Zapruder film could be essentially recreated knowing it would be in conflict with other known films and photos taken by a number of people that day?

3. How could plotters proceed with altering the Zapruder film with any number of films and photos taken that day that remained unknown to them?"

I asked virtually the same questions of Fetzer in an earlier post, neither of them have responded. Since you are the nudger, will you be nudging them now? Thanks.

Josiah's opening post in this thread raised some important issues. Why do you think neither Pamela nor Fetzer will answer these quite obvious and reasonable questions? Maybe you would like to give them a whirl ... no other alteration believer seems to want to touch them.

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Geez, Barb, I though you were familiarizing yourself with the issues. If you read INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, you will find that the old "chain of custody" argument that you and Tink have worn to a bare thread has been demolished by a copy having taken a detour to Kodak at Rochester, where it apparently was reworked and the new version brought to the NPIC in Washington and given to Homer McMahon. This was on Sunday, 24 November 1963, after an earlier version had been brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 23 November 1963. The Saturday version was an 8mm copy, where the NPIC had to go out and buy an 8mm projector to view it. Ben Hunter was not present on this occasion. The next day, Sunday, another version was brought which was 16mm and unsplit. Ben Hunter was there. Earlier reports about this were discussed in Doug's chapter on the NPIC in MURDER (2000), but I am willing to bet that you are no more familiar with that study than you are with his new one. I'm afraid you have some catching up to do if you want to be taken seriously in the discussions that have revolved around Doug's new five-volume book for at least a month or more. In studying the first film, McMahon noticed six to eight impacts on occupants of the limousine, which corresponds with the four that hit JFK and as many as three that hit Connally, where four plus three equals seven, a number in between six and eight, in case you didn't notice. The second appears to have been considerably revised and was used to support a three-shot scenario. You can order Vol. IV from amazon.com at very low cost (about $18 per volume). Check it out and get back.

When we discuss alteration of the Zapruder, let's keep in mind that there are simple actions that may not appear sinister in any way that affect the quality of the film. For example, as Tink explains in SSID, he was allowed to view 4x5 slides of very good quality of the Z-film, probably from a first-gen copy of the original. However, the copy of the film and slides that ended up at NARA were much less clear and probably at least a generation or two-removed from the original.

So LIFE managed to create an elite researcher in Tink, who had unlimited access to the Z-film and spent hundreds of hours pouring over clear copies of it, as opposed to everyone else who had to scavenge with *evidence* of much lower clarity.

As for your assertions about Tink and his "unlimited access" and time spent .... citations, please!

I asked you about?

Barb

Pamela gave you the citations you requested here:

(Pamela McElwain-Brown @ Jan 7 2010, 08:31 PM)

For those few on this forum for whom this is not common knowledge -- Tink's own words from SSID:

Re time spent (in NYC) with the Z-film:

"As LIFE's special consultant on the assassination, I have had unlimited access to the film and have spent literally HUNDREDS of hours examining it. (caps mine) p. 14

Re the version of the Z-film he saw at LIFE v the version he saw at NARA:

"I was certain the picture was infinitely brighter and clearer than the one I had seen only days before in the National Archives in Washington." p.8

Re the difference in quality between the LIFE 4X5 slides and the NARA 35mm slides:

"I looked at several of them [LIFE slides] and again they were unmistakably clearer than the smaller slides that the Commission had used and that I had seen at the Archives." p.9

Now, Barb, it's time for your response.

I asked for citations on the access and time spent. My response to her posting them? Thank you, Pamela.

I am still waiting for her response to the questions I asked her in my post, #8 in this thread:

"There ARE "right"questions that must be asked. And Josiah's comments raise the initial "right" questions that really must have plausible answers before one can move on to considering alteration.

I am interested in your thoughts on:

1. How plotters could extensively alter the Z film (and extensively is what is theorized) given that copies of the film had already been made and dispersed, Zapruder had a copy himself, and Life had the original ... and none of these copies were seized?

2. How the Zapruder film could be essentially recreated knowing it would be in conflict with other known films and photos taken by a number of people that day?

3. How could plotters proceed with altering the Zapruder film with any number of films and photos taken that day that remained unknown to them?"

I asked virtually the same questions of Fetzer in an earlier post, neither of them have responded. Since you are the nudger, will you be nudging them now? Thanks.

Josiah's opening post in this thread raised some important issues. Why do you think neither Pamela nor Fetzer will answer these quite obvious and reasonable questions? Maybe you would like to give them a whirl ... no other alteration believer seems to want to touch them.

Barb :-)

Edited January 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer