The "double-hit" theory and Zapruder authenticity

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For reasons I do not profess to understand, Evan Burton closed the thread about whether Josiah Thompson had ripped off David Lifton at precisely the point where it became most interesting. In a post that Evan put up for him, Lifton has made three important points about his position, which afford an excellent opportunity to distinguish between Lifton's, Josiah's and my positions in relation to these three very important points. Lifton's comments are given in italics:

1. I never subscribed to the double-head hit theory, so obviously i never made the charge that Josiah Thompson ripped me off or did anything wrong in that regards. FYI: from the outset, I had a different explanation for the small forward motion between Z- 312 and Z-313 (I postulated a forward high angle shot, and you will find that elaborated in Best Evidence); and I also wrote a paper about it that was published in the Paul Hoch anthology.

I know that David Lifton does not subscribe to the double-head hit theory because he does not believe that shots were fired from behind. This is as fascinating as Robert Livingston's observation to James Humes that, because there was an entry wound to the throat, the neck had to be dissected very carefully, because, if there were evidence of shots from behind, then there had to have been at least two shooters and therefore a conspiracy, which took place before the body arrived at Andrews Air Force Base (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, pages 170 to 182).

I did not cite Richard Feynman's discovery of the double-hit because I thought (a) that David Lifton accepted it or ( because I thought Josiah Thompson had stolen it. I did not intend to convey that impression. My point was that it is very odd that Josiah should be disavowing what most of us considered to be the most scientific argument in his book, which he has done by appealing to false premises. He disavows it on the basis of the argument that the "startle response" and the hit took place at the same time, which is a physical impossibility.

Lifton's visit to Feynman at CalTech is described on pages 48 to 51 of BEST EVIDENCE (1980). That Josiah Thompson should have made such a thorough and precise study of this double-hit, when Feyman had made the same discovery independently, was entirely convincing to me that the double-hit is present in the film. Because of his commitment to authenticity of the film, therefore, it strains credulity to suppose that both Feynman and Thompson should be mistaken about this, which I do not accept. Yet today Josiah wants to disavow it.

2. More about the 312-313 motion: After I came to realize that the car stop had been removed and the Z film had been edited, I had (that is, "subscribed to") an entirely different explanation for the 312-313 motion: that it was nothing more than an artifact of the editing process. In other words, 312 and 313 was not contiguous on the original (i.e. unedited) film. That was my position then, and it continues to be my belief today.

David Mantik has concluded that both the double-hit and the back-and-to-the-left motion of the body are artifacts of the editing of the film, which, of course, are further reasons for doubting its authenticity. David Lifton, too, has long since concluded that the film is a fabrication and that, as he observes here, frames 312 and 313 were not continuous in time. It is my inference that the frame represents a merge between two shots, which were combined to create the impression of only one shot to the head, but where the fakery involved was highly amateurish.

Indeed, as I suppose we all know by now, Doug Horne enlisted the abilities of technical experts on film restoration from Hollywood, where they viewed a 6k version of the film -- a digitalized copy at 6,000 pixels per frame -- and they were stunned by the feeble quality of the alteration, where the massive blow-out to the back of the head was painted over in black and the bulging brains to the right-front -- the "blob" -- and the blood spray were painted in, precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), pages 159 to 160.

Since Twyman, Lifton, and Mantik are convinced that the film is a fabrication -- based upon extensive independent investigation -- they have ample grounds to suspect that the double-hit is only an artifact of the alternation of the film. But that option is unavailable to Josiah Thompson, who persists in his defense of the film's authenticity. That is what makes me so perplexed by his present attempt to deny the double-hit, which Feynman had discovered in 1966 and Thompson had -- presumably, independently -- established in SIX SECONDS (1967).

3. Yes, I was irritated when the Saturday Evening Post ran that headline, in the December, 1967 issue, about "three assassin", but so what? I did not consider that a ripoff. Subsequently, Josiah Thompson was very helpful in providing me transcripts of his interviews with Sitzman etc., and certain films. He was very helpful. I want to emphasize again that I never subscribed to the double head-hit theory.So allegations that someone stole it from me is inappropriate and unfair to Thompson.

On pages 86 through 90, Josiah explains that he traveled to the National Archives to test Vincent Salandria's observation that the President's head was driven backward and to the left under the impact of a bullet fired from the right front. He describes setting up parallel projectors in order to superimpose one frame upon another. And that, with the assistance of a young physics student, Bill Hoffman, he was able to measure the motions -- both forward and backward -- with great precision. And on pages 90 through 95, he defends his double-hit analysis from alternative explanations.

In particular, he considers alternative (A1) that the President's head perhaps struck some fixed surface in the car, thus reversing its direction in travel. But the film reveals no such fixed surface. He considers alternative (A2) that Jackie had pulled the president into her arms after the impact, thus accounting for the left-backward snap. But the film shows no movement on her part to grab him and, as he observes, her failure to pull him down was a source of torment to her for the rest of her life. So that alternative can be excluded, too.

That left alternative (A3) that the car suddenly accelerated or decelerated during this time, thus throwing the President either forward or backward. But this he rules out on the basis that witnesses did not report the limousine accelerating until after the head shot. "The combined testimony of all these witnesses indicates that the car did not accelerate until some 3 seconds after the President was struck in the head. And the Zapruder film sows conclusively that no acceleration or deceleration occurred in this critical period" (SIX SECONDS, page 92).

Now if Josiah would accept the massive evidence that impugns the authenticity of the film, I would have no problem with his recent attempts to disavow it. But -- given Feynman's discovery of the double-hit, Josiah's meticulous study (with graphs) of its occurrence, and his elimination of alternative explanations -- so long as he maintains the authenticity of the film, he has no basis to reject it. Indeed, it appears to be the strongest indication of conspiracy presented in his book -- and his attempt to reject it has no foundation. So what is going on here?

I would be very glad if this thread will draw him out to explain where he stands today on the conflict between the medical evidence and the Zapruder film (as I have explained in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"), which he did not address in SIX SECONDS; and where he stands given the very simple and direct proof of fabrication by seven or eight -- including Roderick Ryan -- film experts. Since he has recently denied that he is an expert on film, would he at least concede that, if Doug's reports are accurate, then the film is a fake, after all?

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

How many threads are there going to be on the Zapruder film, Fetzer and Thompson?

Can't you stick to just three or four?

Why start a new one every day?

Jack White already started one on this very topic.

They now take up the entire board.

(I agree the post should not have been closed)

Bill Kelly

Edited January 9, 2010 by William Kelly

[Josiah Thompson]

I'll tell you what I'll do, Bill. I'll just ignore this whole thread. All it is anyway is just the same old... same old.

Josiah Thompson

How many threads are there going to be on the Zapruder film, Fetzer and Thompson?

Can't you stick to just three or four?

Why start a new one every day?

Jack White already started one on this very topic.

They now take up the entire board.

(I agree the post should not have been closed)

Bill Kelly

[Dean Hagerman]

I am very troubled by the fact that Tink changed his mind on the double hit theory

The explanation he gave for changing his mind (motion blur) to me is crazy

I have watched it over and over and over and see no motion blur

I also made a GIF from Costellas combined edit and I do not see ANYONE in the limo start to slide forward at frame 308 as Tink says

Just watch Jackie from 308 until 313, she does not move forward

I have no idea why Tink would change his well researched and well founded theory on these two things (motion blur and the limo slowing down causing those inside to slide forward starting at frame 308) that do not appear on the Z-film

I created the thread like Tink asked and he did in fact answer my question, but I can not swallow the explanation Tink gave for changing his mind

You were right the first time Tink, I have already explained why your double hit theory is important to my research, I still dont know why its no longer important to yours

Dean

[Dean Hagerman]

I'll tell you what I'll do, Bill. I'll just ignore this whole thread. All it is anyway is just the same old... same old.

Josiah Thompson

How many threads are there going to be on the Zapruder film, Fetzer and Thompson?

Can't you stick to just three or four?

Why start a new one every day?

Jack White already started one on this very topic.

They now take up the entire board.

(I agree the post should not have been closed)

Bill Kelly

Thats great

How many times will a thread be closed or ignored after I make a post or minutes before I make one?

I guess I will repost this in the thread I started

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Stop ducking and weaving, running and hiding! All we want to know is (1) where do you stand on the medical evidence in relation to the Zapruder film today (the issue you did not confront in your book) and (2) if Doug Horne's summary of the eight Hollywood experts is accurate, then would you concede that the film is a fake and that you were mistaken all along? Do you have the guts?

I'll tell you what I'll do, Bill. I'll just ignore this whole thread. All it is anyway is just the same old... same old.

Josiah Thompson

How many threads are there going to be on the Zapruder film, Fetzer and Thompson?

Can't you stick to just three or four?

Why start a new one every day?

Jack White already started one on this very topic.

They now take up the entire board.

(I agree the post should not have been closed)

Bill Kelly

[William Kelly]

I'll tell you what I'll do, Bill. I'll just ignore this whole thread. All it is anyway is just the same old... same old.

Josiah Thompson

How many threads are there going to be on the Zapruder film, Fetzer and Thompson?

Can't you stick to just three or four?

Why start a new one every day?

Jack White already started one on this very topic.

They now take up the entire board.

(I agree the post should not have been closed)

Bill Kelly

Thats great

How many times will a thread be closed or ignored after I make a post or minutes before I make one?

I guess I will repost this in the thread I started

Dean,

You don't have to like what TT's answers are; do your own research and make up your own mind.

And I think that TT has answered Prof. Fetzer's questions, over and over.

He's not a student of Fetzer's who has to answer his questions like he's going to get graded on it. He wrote his own book, a book that stands up pretty well today, even though he's learned a lot since then and has changed his mind on a few issues.

One thing he hasn't changed his mind on is the Z-film authenticty, and it doesn't matter what the opinions are of the Hollywood special effects people, if they don't come up with evidence, proof of tampering - other than the anamolies in the film, why should he change his mind.

Proof that the Z-film was at the "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak's Rochester HQ would certainly put a dent in the chain of possession however, and that's yet to be determined.

Now that every thread on the first page is devoted to Fetzer and Thompson and the Z-film, I think I'll have to start a few of my own on some other subjects of interest - like who killed JFK.

BK

[Dean Hagerman]

I'll tell you what I'll do, Bill. I'll just ignore this whole thread. All it is anyway is just the same old... same old.

Josiah Thompson

How many threads are there going to be on the Zapruder film, Fetzer and Thompson?

Can't you stick to just three or four?

Why start a new one every day?

Jack White already started one on this very topic.

They now take up the entire board.

(I agree the post should not have been closed)

Bill Kelly

Thats great

How many times will a thread be closed or ignored after I make a post or minutes before I make one?

I guess I will repost this in the thread I started

Dean,

You don't have to like what TT's answers are; do your own research and make up your own mind.

And I think that TT has answered Prof. Fetzer's questions, over and over.

He's not a student of Fetzer's who has to answer his questions like he's going to get graded on it. He wrote his own book, a book that stands up pretty well today, even though he's learned a lot since then and has changed his mind on a few issues.

One thing he hasn't changed his mind on is the Z-film authenticty, and it doesn't matter what the opinions are of the Hollywood special effects people, if they don't come up with evidence, proof of tampering - other than the anamolies in the film, why should he change his mind.

Proof that the Z-film was at the "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak's Rochester HQ would certainly put a dent in the chain of possession however, and that's yet to be determined.

Now that every thread on the first page is devoted to Fetzer and Thompson and the Z-film, I think I'll have to start a few of my own on some other subjects of interest - like who killed JFK.

BK

Bill

I have done my own research and I have made up my own mind

One of the important parts of my theory revolves around Tinks double head shot theory

Now I have believed Tink since I first read SSID back in 1988

I have had this theory (double head shot) as a part of not only my begining research into the assassination, but still to this day it is even a bigger part of my overall view of the assassination

Now to have Tink just discard his double hit theory to two things that I can not see with my own research is very troubling to me

What else in his book that I believed in is he going to discard in the future?

Its not a matter of him just answering my question as you seem to think Bill, there is much more to it then that

For someone as myself who looked up to Tink as a young kid back in the 80s, whom my grandpa told me was right up there with Harold Weisberg as one of the best researchers its a little hard for me to accecpt the fact that he is turning his back on his own work

I dont think Tink understands where I am coming from no matter how many times I post or tell him how important his theory is to my views on the assassination, it almost looks like he doesnt care

That changes my views on him as a researcher

I hope that clears it up a little for you Bill

Dean

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean, You have done an excellent job of debunking Josiah's phony explanation for abandoning the "double hit" theory, for which I commend you. There are too many for whom, like Bill Miller, Josiah's affect is like that of "The Force" when it is said, "The Force can have a powerful influence on the weak-minded!" He stated candidly on another thread, when I exposed his review of MURDER as a farce, that he has no interest in the medical, ballistic, or photographic evidence, which makes it absurd that he should be reviewing a book that is chock full of studies of the medical, ballistic, and photographic evidence. You are calling Tink's bluff and Bill Kelly cannot even see through that?! That's incredible!

Can you believe that anyone on this forum would write the following: One thing he hasn't changed his mind on is the Z-film authenticty, and it doesn't matter what the opinions are of the Hollywood special effects people, if they don't come up with evidence, proof of tampering - other than the anamolies (sic) in the film, why should he change his mind. So film experts have concluded that the film is a fake, that the massive blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black and the "blob" and blood spray has been painted in--and Kelly supports Tink in the face of conclusive evidence of fakery? I guess he was right when he said he really didn't have any interest in the photographic evidence.

There appears to be no level of proof that would move Josiah from his commitment to the authenticity of the film. That means for him it is not a question of evidence and logic but of defending a predetermined conclusion. I can understand why Bill Kelly--who doesn't have the faintest grasp of the issues--should be taken in. But Tink has a Ph.D. from Yale and was once a professor of philosophy at Haverford. The same cannot be said of him. When he rejects simple and direct proof of fakey from film experts, it reveals just a little too much about his methodology and rationale for being here, which appears to have more to do with concealing truths than revealing them. This is quite a stunning demonstration!

Jim

I'll tell you what I'll do, Bill. I'll just ignore this whole thread. All it is anyway is just the same old... same old.

Josiah Thompson

How many threads are there going to be on the Zapruder film, Fetzer and Thompson?

Can't you stick to just three or four?

Why start a new one every day?

Jack White already started one on this very topic.

They now take up the entire board.

(I agree the post should not have been closed)

Bill Kelly

Thats great

How many times will a thread be closed or ignored after I make a post or minutes before I make one?

I guess I will repost this in the thread I started

Dean,

You don't have to like what TT's answers are; do your own research and make up your own mind.

And I think that TT has answered Prof. Fetzer's questions, over and over.

He's not a student of Fetzer's who has to answer his questions like he's going to get graded on it. He wrote his own book, a book that stands up pretty well today, even though he's learned a lot since then and has changed his mind on a few issues.

One thing he hasn't changed his mind on is the Z-film authenticty, and it doesn't matter what the opinions are of the Hollywood special effects people, if they don't come up with evidence, proof of tampering - other than the anamolies in the film, why should he change his mind.

Proof that the Z-film was at the "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak's Rochester HQ would certainly put a dent in the chain of possession however, and that's yet to be determined.

Now that every thread on the first page is devoted to Fetzer and Thompson and the Z-film, I think I'll have to start a few of my own on some other subjects of interest - like who killed JFK.

BK

Bill

I have done my own research and I have made up my own mind

One of the important parts of my theory revolves around Tinks double head shot theory

Now I have believed Tink since I first read SSID back in 1988

I have had this theory (double head shot) as a part of not only my begining research into the assassination, but still to this day it is even a bigger part of my overall view of the assassination

Now to have Tink just discard his double hit theory to two things that I can not see with my own research is very troubling to me

What else in his book that I believed in is he going to discard in the future?

Its not a matter of him just answering my question as you seem to think Bill, there is much more to it then that

For someone as myself who looked up to Tink as a young kid back in the 80s, whom my grandpa told me was right up there with Harold Weisberg as one of the best researchers its a little hard for me to accecpt the fact that he is turning his back on his own work

I dont think Tink understands where I am coming from no matter how many times I post or tell him how important his theory is to my views on the assassination, it almost looks like he doesnt care

That changes my views on him as a researcher

I hope that clears it up a little for you Bill

Dean

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Everyone knows that Tink and I have had extended exchanges about the Moorman, including those that have been explained in "Moorman in the Street Revisited", http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/ If the Zapruder were had not been massively reworked, it should have shown events like (i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative, (iii) the limo moving to the left (toward them), (iv) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb and into the street, (v) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and all that, (vi) Mary taking her picture, (vii) both stepping back onto the grass, (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of which is shown in the film.

More recently, in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", I have laid out the inconsistency between the medical and other evidence of a blow-out to the left-rear with the blow-out to the right-front seen in the film. That Tink did not pursue this issue -- even though it was literally staring him in the face! -- astounds me. If you don't want to impugn his motives, then dismiss it as "sloppy research", but he should be responding to my requests that he tell us where he stands today on this question. Let me repeat for emphasis: he should be telling us what he makes of the contradiction between the medical evidence and the film, not then but now!

I presume you will allow that as a legitimate question from which he should directly confront. Not only has he been ducking and weaving, running and hiding from that one, however, he is also ignoring the existence of reports by experts on film restoration who have viewed a 6k (6,000 pixels per frame) version of the film and discovered not only fakery but amateurish fakery, where the massive blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black and the "blob" and blood spray have been painted in. In Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Doug Horne has reported their findings, which at this point in time are shared by at least eight Hollywood film experts--and probably more!

Given your skepticism, I am pressed to ask if you have actually read any of the sources that I have cited here. Have you read "Moorman in the Street Revisited"? Have you read "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"? Have you read the relevant parts of Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB? Because my impression is that you have not given any of these matters the thought they require. These are not matters of subjective opinion. The Hollywood people are film experts! It's a matter of logic and evidence and professional judgment. Would you at least agree that, if they are right in the observations that Doug has reported in Vol. IV, then the film is a fake? Because that is my final question for you.

Dean, You have done an excellent job of debunking Josiah's phony explanation for abandoning the "double hit" theory, for which I commend you. There are too many for whom, like Bill Miller, Josiah's affect is like that of "The Force", when it is said, "The Force can have a powerful influence on the weak-minded!" He stated candidly on another thread, when I exposed his review of MURDER as a farce, that he has no interest in the medical, ballistic, or photographic evidence, which makes it absurd that he should be reviewing a book that is chock full of studies of the medical, ballistic, and photographic evidence. You are calling Tink's bluff and Bill Kelly cannot even see through that?

Can you believe that anyone on this forum would write the following: One thing he hasn't changed his mind on is the Z-film authenticty, and it doesn't matter what the opinions are of the Hollywood special effects people, if they don't come up with evidence, proof of tampering - other than the anamolies in the film, why should he change his mind. So film experts conclude that the film is a fake, that the massive blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black and the "blob" and blood spray has been painted in--and Kelly supports Tink in the face of conclusive evidence of fakery? I guess he was right when he said he really didn't have any interest in the photographic evidence.

I think Dean just appears disappointed in Thompson's change of heart. He hasn't debunked anything.

Trying to hang a "win" on the experiences of Hollywood special effects people w/o seeing what they did makes no sense. As for the current Zfilm fakery information, I don't believe it either. ( " Moorman in the Street" argument was successfully debunked, IMO)

Also, I don't think the FORCE argument is applicable, in this instance. To adopt a "wait and see" is commendable. I can't understand why you don't feel the same way. Seriously--even though you believe that the Z film is faked, I don't get why so much anger and belittling is given to those who don't.

Kathy

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You mention "Moorman materials". Have you read "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"? Do you appreciate that the film shows a bulging out of brains to the right front--called the "blob"--which extends from frame 313 to around frame 340? If you don't have the film accessible, visit http://assassinationscience.com and scroll down to the section on "The New Zapruder Film" and check them out. But the medical evidence, including the McClelland diagram in Tink's book on page 107 and the testimony by Officer Hargis, which he quotes on page 100, indicate that the blow out was to the left and rear. Does that cause you any concern that the medical evidence contradicts what is seen in the film? And, by the way, if you look at frame 374, you can actually see the massive defect at the back of his head and the skull flap extending from his cranium. Even if we leave Mary and Jean as "frozen turkeys" on the grass, does anything about the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film bother you and suggest the possibility the film is faked? Because that is the point I make in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid".

About INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, with one exception, I don't know where you get the idea that any of this was anonymous. As Doug explains on page 1352, he made preliminary contact by email with Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood, who had decades of experience dealing with editors, experts in film restoration, and film studio executives. Through her, he arranged to have a 6k (6,000 pixels per frame) version of the Zapruder film viewed by Ned Price, an accomplished film restoration specialist with 24 years experience restoring films from 1919 to the present, Paul Rutan, Jr., the President and CEO of a Hollywood film restoration company, and an independent film editor with about three decades of practical experience, whom he does not name. As Doug reports on page 1361, when they viewed frames 313 through 323, Price, who is the head of a restoration at a major Hollywood film studio, said, "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." And Rutan observed, "We are not looking at opticals: we are looking at artwork", meaning that they were looking at effects that were actually painted onto the original film frames. This is a simple and obvious proof involving direct perception.

What they discovered was that the massive blow-out to the back of the head (which you can see for yourself in frame 374) had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. They therefore agreed with Roderick Ryan, who told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), the same thing, which you can read for yourself on pages 159 and 160. Ryan, by the way, received the Academy Award for his contributions to special-effects cinematography in 2000. While Doug says this is not yet "scientific proof" of alteration, he was mistaken in saying that. Observation, measurement, and experiment are fundamental to scientific inquiries. By creating a 6k version of the film and inviting experts to observe it, he was conducting an experiment with trained observers and soliciting their professional judgment. By comparing those frames with frame 374, for example, the deception is apparent based upon comparisons of the frames themselves. And the experiment has been replicated, where now at least eight Hollywood experts concur. And some of this you can actually verify for yourself!

Doug, we both agree, is an honest man who, as it happens, has a degree in history. That leads me to pose the following conditional (if . . . then ___) question for your consideration, which is the following. If the findings of these film experts are as Horne has explained and I have described them, then would you agree that the film has to be a fabrication? In other words, if it is indeed true that the massive defect to the back of his head has been painted over in black (which you can tell by comparison with frame 374) and the "blob" and blood spray have been painted in, then would you acknowledge that the film is a fake (at least in these respects and possibly others)? Because I have been posing this question to Josiah Thompson now for several days, but he will not address the question. I hope that you, unlike Tink, will not bob and weave, duck or hide from answering an obvious question. So I repeat it once more: if the film has the features these experts have found, then would you agree that it cannot possibly be genuine?

Yes, I have gone through all of the Moorman material presented.

I have the Horne book on order, so I cannot tell you honestly that I have read it, but I will. I consider Doug Horne to be a fine person as well, and am certain that series he has written is fantastic.--

BUT

if the Hollywood experts are not named, and their work is not shown, why would I blindly trust it? Seriously. Do we even know who they are? Isn't a reservation of judgment the best way to go, until we see? I can still think alot of someone and disagree with them. I don't think Doug would hold that against anyone.

I have to see it.

Kathy

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

After what I have so patiently explained -- and given that Doug Horne was working for the ARRB -- do you entertain any serious doubts about the quality of the film they were studying or the qualifications of the experts whom he consulted? I appreciate your willingness to make the conditional statement you have, however, which Josiah Thompson appears unwilling to do. Good for you!

(if . . . then ___) question for your consideration, which is the following. If the findings of these film experts are as Horne has explained and I have described them, then would you agree that the film has to be a fabrication? In other words, if it is indeed true that the massive defect to the back of his head has been painted over in black (which you can tell by comparison with frame 374) and the "blob" and blood spray have been painted in, then would you acknowledge that the film is a fake (at least in these respects and possibly others)? Because I have been posing this question to Josiah Thompson now for several days, but he will not address the question. I hope that you, unlike Tink, will not bob and weave, duck or hide from answering an obvious question. So I repeat it once more: if the film has the features these experts have found, then would you agree that it cannot possibly be genuine?

Just so we are agreed on this:

If the best copies available are used , and we have qualified experts looking at them, with results published and released, and there are signs of alteration?

Yes, I would believe it.

The parts here that necessitate definition are:

1.What the best copies available means

&

2. Who are the experts

Fair?

Kathy

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

1. The experts are named. Why does Kathy keep saying they are not?

2. Kathy does not understand photography. She is grasping at straws demanding

that the "best possible copy" must be used, since the effects being studied are

GROSS EFFECTS, not subtle shadings. The main object of study by the Hollywood 7

is THE BLOB. I have seen probably every version of the Z film, from excellent to

poor...and the BLOB is consistently observable in all copies of whatever generation.

THE GENERATION MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!

3. Jim has provided a lengthy list of OTHER MORE IMPORTANT INDICATIONS OF

FAKERY which Kathy IGNORES. The film generation, as an example, makes no

difference if the film DOES NOT SHOW THE LIMO STOP OR OFFICER CHANEY

SPEEDING FORWARD.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are of course correct, Jack. And on page 1353, I discovered that Sydney W.

had purchased a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the

Zapruder film created by the National Archives. Can't do better than that!

So they were using "the best possible copy" of the Zapruder film -- the very best!

1. The experts are named. Why does Kathy keep saying they are not?

2. Kathy does not understand photography. She is grasping at straws demanding

that the "best possible copy" must be used, since the effects being studied are

GROSS EFFECTS, not subtle shadings. The main object of study by the Hollywood 7

is THE BLOB. I have seen probably every version of the Z film, from excellent to

poor...and the BLOB is consistently observable in all copies of whatever generation.

THE GENERATION MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!

3. Jim has provided a lengthy list of OTHER MORE IMPORTANT INDICATIONS OF

FAKERY which Kathy IGNORES. The film generation, as an example, makes no

difference if the film DOES NOT SHOW THE LIMO STOP OR OFFICER CHANEY

SPEEDING FORWARD.

Jack

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kathy, If there were any question about the quality of this print, the National Archives would not be marketing it as the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives. I have two objections to this post: (1) you don't connect it to the post to which you are responding, which means that, to see if you are dealing with the issues, we have to return to earlier posts; and (2) you do not cite the source, which, presumably, is INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, but you do not even provide page numbers to make it verifiable. Someone appears to be feeding you posts, which is fine with me. But you need to follow appropriate guidelines for replies to previous posts. Please provide the page number(s) for this quote. As Jack has observed, these are gross discrepancies, where any differences between somewhat earlier copies and "the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives" are not going to save the day. If there were significant differences, then why would the National Archives be releasing this copy as "the Forensic Copy"? This is a ruse to raise doubt where there is no foundation for it. If it were the fourth, they would say it should be the third. I am sorry to say, but someone is misleading you. And that person would be your source.

"Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print. She wanted a dupe negative because her intent from the beginning was to subject the Zapruder film to the serious, professional scrutiny of Hollywood film professionals in an attempt to resolve the ongoing debate about its authenticity. Sydney’s attitude going into this effort was similar to my own attitude about the Zapruder film when I began working for the ARRB in 1995; she was very curious about the issues that had been raised about the Zapruder film’s authenticity, and simply wanted to know the answer, one way or the other."

5th generation copy, when I have been reading in a few threads that better are available? I wouldn't think there would be any objection to looking at something more close to the original, if available.

Kathy

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer